



















#LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

4 --- ^ 

I [SMITHSONIAN DEPOSIT.] i 

# . jK^S-iO \ 

i 


/gsy 


i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.' 





V 



. / 

' 










SELECT OOMLdllTTEE, 


TO AVIIOM WAS REFERRED THE CLAIMS OP 


WILLIAM H. TIBBS AND JOHN A. MINNIS, 

TO A SEAT IN THE SENATE, 

• From the ]^]ighth Senatorial District. 







•f 




i 4 ' V 




» . 






-,•'. J V. • . , . 

/ f \s ' ' • 








• r.i't : 

i 


- •» 

% ■. 




<4 . 




;'^v'r 


1 ^ 4 ^ ■ ^ ' v :- ^ 

. 


' . • • ' " ■ i 

»- 1 / / . 
4 .. 


■h [A 




T* * 


- 

ff 

J;. w 


■,.vt 


4 

'•H ■ 

/iw- 


>^4 


’(rfl » 


'V 4f> '• ^TJ 


\ . 


•v 


t*^ 


f'' •’l/'l 


t; ’«.• 




r 


'C 


)• 


I; 


?rf<> 


N 



r ■ ’ 


^ Vi 


■^ ( , ;• • U' 


/. 





4 . . 


• v. 


R E P O'R T 


OP THE 








SELECT COMMITTiyE, 


TO WHOM WAS EEFEREED THE CLAIMS OF 


WILLIAM H. TIBBS AMD JOHN A. MINNIS, 


TO A SEAT IN THE SENATE 



From the Eighth Senatorial District. 




NASHVILLE: 

E. G. EASTMAN & CO.-, PUBLIC PEINTEES. 

18 5 7 . 








REPORT 


The Select Committee, to whom was referred the claims of 
William H. Tibbs and John A. Minnis to a seat in the Senate 
from the Eighth Senatorial District, have had the same under 
consideration, and beg leave to submit the following Report, viz: 
That, by an Act of the Legislature of 1851-2, the representation 
in the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee was appor¬ 
tioned, and that the counties of Rhea, Bltdsoe, Bradley, Hamil¬ 
ton, and Marion formed the Eighth Senatorial District of the State; 
that, on the 25th of February, 1856, the General Assembly passed 
an Act to attach the tenth civil district of BFdsoe county, and 
the first and second civil districts of Marion county, to the county 
of Hamilton. Said Act was not to take effect until the 21st Sep¬ 
tember, 1857. The county of Hamilton did not, as your Commit¬ 
tee report, actually extend its jurisdiction over the districts so 
attached to it by the Act referred to, although the territory com¬ 
prised within those districts became a part and parcel of said 
county of Hamilton, according to the terms and conditions of said 
Act. On the 9th of December, 1857, an Act was passed by the 
General Assembly of the State, entitled An Act to establish the 
county of Sequatchie, etc., in which it is enacted, “That a new 
county is hereby established by the name cf Sequatchie, and 
formed out of the county (»f Plamilton, and bounded as follows.” 
The Act then goes on to give the boundaries of the new county 
of Sequatchie, which included the districts of country taken from 
the counties of Marion and Bledsoe, and attached to Hamilton, 
by the Act of 1856, already referred to. By the terms and provi¬ 
sions of this act, it went into immediate effect; and it was ex¬ 
pressly provided, that the new county of Sequatchie should have 
all the powers and privileges, and be subject to the same restric¬ 
tions, of the other counties in the State. 

The facts in the case show that, in pursuance of said act, the 
county of Sequatchie was organized ; a County Court was holden 
the first Monday in January, 1858, officers appointed, and, in tact, 
said county assumed all the functions and offices which pertained 
to the old counties of the State, and was as much a county, in 
contfmplation of law, on the 4th day of March, 1858, as were 



4 


the counties of Davidson, Williamson, or Rutherford. And after 
the complete organization of said county, the General Assembly 
passed an Act to change the lines between the counties of Grundy 
and Sequatchie, Jefferson and Grainger, Van Buren and White, De- 
Kalb and Smith, Polk and Bradley, Wilson and Cannon, Ruther¬ 
ford and Coffee, Haywood and Madison, and the counties of An¬ 
derson and Roane ; under that law a portion of Grundy was 
attached to the county of Sequatchie, in the same way, and by 
virtue of the same power in the Legislature, that a portion of terri¬ 
tory of Coffee county was attached to the county of Rutherford, 
a portion of Wilson attached to the county ol Cannon, a portion 
of Haywood attached to the coun':y of Madison ; and, in this very 
case, three districts from Marion and bledsoe had been, by the 
preceding I^egislature, attached to the county of Hamilton. So 
it will be seen that the county of Sequatchie was established on 
the 9th day of December, 1857; that it was organized into a 
county on the first Monday of January, 1858, with all the func- 
tiois of a county, full and complete in all its offices, requiring no 
additional act of legislation to make it more perlect than it was 
as a new county ; hence, your Committee conclude that the object 
in changing the line between Sequatchie and Grundy could not 
have been to aid in f*)rming a county whicdi had already been 
formed, or in organizing a county which had already been fully 
organized ; but must have been, and doubtless was, to promote 
the convenience of the people of that portion of Grundy county 
who sought to be included in the county of Sequatchie. The same 
power that enables the Legislature to change county lines in other 
case>s, existed in this case under consideration, and the same 
rights and privileges which the citizens possessed who are attached 
from other counties, must of necessity have pertained to the citi¬ 
zens of Grundy, who were included, by a change of county line, . 
within the limits of the county of Sequatchie. We cannot feel 
nor appreciate the force of the reasoning which permits the citi¬ 
zen of Coffee, who is attached by a legislative act to the county of 
Rutherford, to vote as a freeman in the county to which he is 
attached, while the citizen of Grundy is denied a like sacred privi¬ 
lege on his part. 

But it is argued, with some degree of plausibility, that a consti¬ 
tutional disability, so far as this right is concerned, attended the 
Grundy county citizen ; and, for the purpose of sustaining the 
argument, the 4th and 5th sectums of Article X of the Constitu¬ 
tion cf the State of Tennessee are relied on. The 4th section 
provides : “ New counties may be established by the Legislature, 
to consist of not less than three hundred and fifty square miles, 
and which shall contain a population of four hundred and fifty 
qualified voters.” The 5th section provides, that “ The citizens 
who may be included in any new county, shall vote with the 
county or counties from which they may have been stricken off, 


5 


for members of Congress, for Governor, and for members to the 
General Assembly, until the next apportionment of members to 
tl’.e General Assembly after the establishment of such new coun¬ 
ties.” 1 he meaning of the Constitution, and the object of 
the framers of it, in relation to new counties, are too plain to 
be misunderstood, d'hey were not providing for citizens who 
were thrown from one county to another by a mere change in 
county line, neither were they seeking to put any disabilities 
either on citizens of new or old counties, who might be effected 
in the civil and municipal relations by such a change ; neither can 
it be argued that territory transferred by the action of a Legisla¬ 
ture from one county to another was the subject-matter of consid¬ 
eration ; but, on the contrary, the very terms and language of the 
Constitution clearly and indisputably prove that the object was to 
clothe the Legislature with the power to form new counties, and 
to designate the mode and manner in which the citizens stricken 
off from old to make new counties should exercise the voting 
privilege. In doing this, the object doubtless was to disturb as 
little as possible the order of things existing at the time of 
its formation, and hence, it was provided, “ That the citizens who 
may be included in any new county, shall vote with the county or 
counties from which they may have been stricken off, until the 
next apportionment,” etc. Included in a new county how ? By 
being stricken off from an old county to form the new county. 
That this clause in the Constitution applies to the citizens in 
the territory taken in making the new county, is too plain to 
admit of a reasonable controversy. 

It was under this section and in obedience to its restrictions 
that the county of Sequatchie was made a part of the Eighth 
Senatorial District by the act of the General Assembly of 1857-8. 
That body could have done nothing more than make this county 
a part of that district; because, as its territory was taken from 
Hamilton, the Constitution itself provided that it should vote with 
the county from which it had been stricken off. Hamilton county 
being in the Eighth Senatorial District, this territory must, by the 
provisions of the Constitution, vote in this district. The Legisla¬ 
ture, ever since the adoption of the Constitution, has, from time 
to time, changed county lines, placing voters in one county or 
district, in a different county or district; the Constitution making 
no provision in such a case, they must, and uniformly have voted 
with and as apart of the county to which they have been placed 
by such change, and whether they are by such change added to 
an old or new county, it is the same in principle, and must be the 
same in practice. 

The Constitution having made no provisions for the votes in 
the territory thus taken from Grundy and attached to Sequatchie, 
and the act changing the county line reserving for Grundy county 
no jurisdiction over this territory, giving the voters in this territo- 


ry no rights in Grund 3 ^ it is submitted that the citizens so included 
by this change, became entitled to all the rights and privileges, 
and subject to all the restrictions and limitation, that pertained 
to the county within whose jurisdiction they were placed. Tliere 
being no provision in the Constitution, or in any law, for them to 
vole, except in the county of. or with the teriitory composing the 
county of Sequatchie, they had the right to vote in Sequatchie 
county by the very terms of Article 4, Section 1st, of the Consti¬ 
tution, which is as follows: Every Iree white man of the age 

of twenty-one years, being a citizen of the United Slates, and a 
citizen ot the county wherein he may other his vote six months 
next preceding the day of election, shall be entitled to vote for 
members of the General Assembly and other civil officers for the 
county or district in which he rnay’^ reside. ” It is insisted that the 
citizens of the Grundy fraction have no right to vote with the bal¬ 
ance of Sequatchie county^, and consequently their votes should 
not be counted in the Eighth Senatorial Distiict. If this territo¬ 
ry of Grundy county had been taken in the original formation of 
the county^ of Sequatchie, then there would have been no contro¬ 
versy ; but such was not the case ; it was not united with Se¬ 
quatchie county by virtue of the power of the Legislature, with 
the restrictions upon that power, to make new counties, but, as 
above shown, became a part of it by the exercise of the power to 
change county lines; then, for the reasons above shown, the citi¬ 
zens of the fraction of the Grundy territory most clearly had a 
right to vote with the citizens of the balance of the territory of 
Sequatchie, and could vote no where else ; they were entitled to 
all the rights and privileges, and subject to all the restrictions and 
limitations, that pertain to the county within whose jurisdiction 
they were placed. 

Your committee have examined all the evidence laid before 
them by the contesting parlies ; they find that the 2d and 8th 
civil districts trken from Grundy county and attached to Sequatchie 
polled thirty-five votes, nineteen being given by the citizens of this 
portion of Sequatchie county, and the remaining number, sixteen, 
by the resident citizens of the Hamilton portion. They also find 
that the sheriff of Sequatchie county, either by himself or depu¬ 
ties, held the election in all the civil districts of that county ; that 
the judges were regularly appointed in those districts by the pre¬ 
ceding county couit of Sequatchie. This, your committee submit, 
was in conformity to the law giving to Sequatchie a distinct ex¬ 
istence, and requiring it to vote in the Eighth Senatorial District. 
There is some evidence presented going to show that the sheriff' 
of Hamilton county considered himself as giving parole deputa¬ 
tion to the sheriff of Sequatchie to hold the election; this fact, 
however, is controverted by the sheriff of Sequatchie, as will be 
seen from his deposition filed with this report, as are also the other 
depositions taken in the case. 


7 


Your committee, believing that the sheriff of Sequatchie county 
was fully antliorized by law to hold the election in his county, do 
not deem it necessary to look minutely into a question of evi¬ 
dence as to whether the sheriff of Hamilton county did or did not 
confer upon him a special deputation ; if however, this question 
were important, and the deputation had been necessary under 
the circumstances, it would not be difficult to show that the proof 
lalls short of establishing the fact that a deputation was either 
given or accepted. 

Your committee are of opinion that the citizens of the sec¬ 
ond and eighth civil districts of Sequatchie had no right to vote 
with the county of Urundy, to which they originally belonged ; 
that they were either compelled to vote with Sequatchie or not 
vote at all. We have no knowledge of any power in the Legis¬ 
lature of Tennessee, by an act of legislation, to deprive the peo¬ 
ple, or any portion of them, of the privilege of the ballot box, 
when that privilege is exercised in accordance with the Constitu¬ 
tion of the State. The Constitution provides that Every free 
white man of the age of twenty one years, being a citizen of the 
United States, and a citizen of the county wherein he may offer 
his vote six months next preceding the day of election, shall be 
entitled to vote for members of the General Assembly, and other 
civil officers for the county or districts in which he resides,” &c. 
To this fundamental law there is no exception, unless it may be 
the limited one of citizens residing in the portions of old counties 
which have been stricken off to form new ones. The Grundy 
county territory does not fall within this exception. 

Your committee find in the certificate of the sheriffs of the 
counties comprising the Eighth Senatorial District, that they met 
at the time and place designated by law; that after comparing 
the polls, John A. Minnis received a majority of eighteen votes 
over his competitor, Wm. H. Tibbs ; whereupon, your committee 
are of opinion that John A. Minnis is entitled to his seat in this 
House. They therefore report the following resolution : 

Resolved, That John A. Minnis was duly and constitutionally 
elected a Senator of the Eighth Senatorial District of Tennessee, 
on the first Thursday in August, 1859, and that he is entitled to 
his seat in this body as such Senator. 

B. L. STOVALL, Chairman, 
R. G. PAYNE. 

JAS.L. THOMPSON. 




On the 25th of February, 1856, the General Assembly passed 
an act (chap. 162, secs. 3 and 4. p. 246) to take effect on the 21st 
of September, 1857, by which the Tenth Civil District of Bledsoe 




8 


County and the First and Second Civil Districts of Marion County 
were attached to the couniy of Hamilton. On the 9th of Decem¬ 
ber, 1857, the General Assembly formed a new county out of this 
territory, by enacting, (chap 11, sec. 1, p. 7,) ‘‘ That a new coun¬ 
ty is hereby established by the name of Sequatchie, and formed 
out of the county of Hamilton, and bounded as follows,” &c. By 
express provision, this act went into effect immediately, and the 
county of Sequatchie was “ placed upon an equal footing, with 
equal powers and privileges in all respects as other counties in the 
Stale.” On the 4th of March, 1858, the General Assembly passed 
an act, (chap. 47, p. 57,) To change the line between the coun¬ 
ties of Grundy and Sequatchie, Jefferson and Grainger, Van Buren 
and White,” and several other county lines. By section 2 it is 
enacted, “ That the line between the counties of Grundy and Se¬ 
quatchie be changed as follows,” &:c., by which a portion of 
Grundy County was attached to Sequatchie. The county of Se¬ 
quatchie has been laid off into civil districts and election precincts 
established by the county authorities. By section 99 of the Code, 
which went into effect forty days after the adjournment of the 
Legislature of 1857-8, the Eighth Senatorial District is composed 
of the counties of Rhea, Bledsoe, Bradley, Hamilton, Marion and 
Sequatchie—the territory and voting population being the same 
included in the district as laid off under the last apportionment 
act, except the territory and population cut off from Grundy 
County by the change of county lines above mentioned. At the 
election for members of the General Assembly, held on the 4th of 
August, 1859, the election of Sequatchie County for Senator was 
held by the county officers at the precincts established by the 
county authorities. In the fraction of Sequatchie County taken 
from Grundy by the change of county lines, nineteen votes were 
polled and counted in the return made by the proper returning 
officers, of the election for Senator in the Eighth Senatorial 
District. 

Upon the foregoing state of facts, we are asked to give our 
opinion as lawyers, whether, under the provisions of the fifth sec¬ 
tion of the tenth article of the Constitution, the citizens of the 
Grundy fraction of Sequatchie County were entitled to vote for 
Senator in the Eighth Senatorial District, or should have voted 
with the county of Grundy, from which they were taken? We 
are clearly of opinion, that their votes were legally and constitu¬ 
tionally given in the eighth district. The provision of the Con¬ 
stitution in question has no application to a mere change of 
county lines. The power to change county lines, whereby the 
citizens of one Legislative or Senatorial District have been taken 
therefrom and attached to another district, has been frequently 
exercised since the Constitution was adopted, and the practice has 
been uniform for such citizens to vote in the district to which they 
have been attached. It was certainly never intended by the 


9 


framers of the Constitution to restrict the power of the Legisla¬ 
ture to make local changes in counties to meet the wishes of the 
people, and the convenience of particular communities. The 
mere fact, that one of the counties, between which the line has 
been changed, is a new county, organized since the last apportion¬ 
ment, cannot alter the question. It can make no difference either 
to the rights of the citizen or in princ^'ple, whether the territory 
from Grundy County is attached to Sequatchie or to any other 
counties comprising the Eighth Senatorial District. The question 
would be the same : is the transfer of voters from one district to 
another, by a change of county lines, a violation of the fifth sec¬ 
tion of the tenth article of the Constitution? We are of opinion 


it is not. 


W. F. COOPER, 
R. J. MEIGS. 



The undersigned, a minority of the Committee to which was 
referred the contested election case from the Eighth Senatorial 
District, between William H. Tibbs and John A. IVlinnis, not being 
able to agree with the majority in. their statement of facts, the 
course of their argument or the result of their examination, beg 
leave to submit the following report: 

The undersigned have examined with great care the various 
provisions of the Constitution, and the different acts of the Legis¬ 
lature, bearing directl}^ or indirectly upon the merits of the case, 
and have analyzed minutely the testimony offered by the con¬ 
testants. This examination, began and conducted with a sincere 
desire to attain a sound and truthful conclusion, has led them to 
the firm conviction, that William H. Tibbs and not John A. Min- 
nis, is entitled to the seat on this floor as Senator from the Eighth 
District; and while it may be, that the undersigned will not be 
able to convince all the members of this body, yet they do expect 
to satisfyall here andelsewhere interested in the matter, that their 
conviction has much of sound argument and good sense to sustain 
it. The merits of the controversy turn upon the determination of 




10 


two questions: Were the voters of the Grundy fraction of Se¬ 
quatchie County entitled, at the late election for Governor, Con¬ 
gressmen and members of the General Assembly, to \ote for 
Senator in the Eighth Senatorial District? and if they were not 
so entitled, was the election held and conducted in the Hamilton 
fraction of Sequatchie County in reasonable conformity with our 
statutory law upon that subject ? and to these questions we will 
direct our attention in the order they are stated : 

1. Were the qualified voters of the Grundy fraction of Sequatchie 
County entitled at the late election to vote for Senator in the 
Eighth Senatorial District ? The majority contend that they were 
so entitled, and the undersigned deny this, and insist that they 
could only vote with Grundy County, in the Fourteenth Senato¬ 
rial District. By the apportionment law of 1&51-2, the counties 
of Rhea, Bledsoe, Bradley, Hamilton and Marion form the Eight 
Senatorial District; at the session of 1855-6 the General Assem¬ 
bly passed an act (chap. 162) to take effect on the 21si day of Sep¬ 
tember, l’^57, attaching the Tenth Civil District of Bledsoe 
County and the First and Second Civil Districts of Marion Coun¬ 
ty to Hamilton County, and by an act passed on the 4th day of 
November, 1857, (See Private Acts of 1857-58, chap. 5.) these 
Civil Districts were formed into the Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Sev« 
enteenth Civil Districts of tiamilton ; and it is expressly provided 
that the Justices of the Peace and Constables, then in office, were 
to “ continue to use and exercise their power and authority as 
Justices of the Peace and Constables of Hamilton County until 
their successors in office were elected, or some other provision 
made for the enforcement of law and the attainment of justice.’^ 
On the 9th day of December, 1857, the Legislature passed an act 
to establish thu county of Sequatchie, embracing in its designated 
boundaries the three Civil Districts taken from Bledsoe and Ma¬ 
rion Counties, and made a part of Hamilton County, as above 
stated ; and on the 4th day of March, 1858, the same Legislature 
passed an act, by the terms of which a portion of Grundy County, 
containing, according to the weight of the proof, thirty square 
miles of territory, was added to the new county of Sequatchie, 
under the pretence of a change of county lines. By the terms 
and provisions of the act creating the new^ county, the Justices 
of the Peace living in said Fifteenth, Sixteenth and Seventeenth 
Civil Districts were authorized to meet on the first Monday in 
January, 1858, and organize a County Court and elect such coun¬ 
ty officers as they are entitled to elect; commissioners were ap¬ 
pointed with power to select a site for a permanent county-seat, 
and the Sheriff of Hamilton County is directed to give notice of 
and hold an election on the first Saturday in March, 1858, for 
Sheriff, Clerk of the Circuit and County Courts, Register and 
Trustee. On the first Monday in January, 1858, the Justices of 
the Peace met and constituted themselves a County Court, and in 


11 


addition to discharging the duties imposed upon them by the act, 
made temporary appointments of a Sheriff, Clerk of the County 
Court, and perhaps other officers ; and before the commissioners 
had located a county seat, and before the Sheriff of Hamilton 
County had held the election for county officers, a bill of injunc¬ 
tion was filed and a fiat obtained enjoining the commissioners and 
the County Court and Sheriff of Hamilton from taking any further 
steps in the establishment and organization of the new county. 
It does not appear in proof, that an election has yet been held for 
county officers ; hut it does appear that County and Circuit Courts 
have been regularly held in the new county, and that the duties 
of the different county officers have been performed by persons 
claiming to be lawfully entitled to the offices. It is satisfactorily 
proved, that in the original draft of the act creating the new 
county of Sequatchie, a portion of Grundy County, pretty much the 
same as the part subsequently taken, was embraced, but it was 
stricken out for the time, at the request of the member in the 
House from Grundy, Coffee and Van Buren Counties, to enable 
him to consult the people of the portion sought to be stricken off; 
that the new county did not, until the addition of the Grundy 
fraction, have the number of square miles of territory or the 
voting population required by the Constitution in the formation of 
new counties, and that the active friends of the new county had 
the Grundy fraction added to obviate constitutional objections, 
and with the hope that it would terminate the existing, and pre 
vent any future litigation in the matter. These are all the mate¬ 
rial facts in proof, necessary to be stated to the full elucidation of 
the argument on the point now under consideration. 

By the fourth section of the tenth article of the Constitution, it 
is provided that “ new counties may be established by the Legisla¬ 
ture, to consist of not less than three hundred and fifty square 
miles, and which shall contain a population of four hundred and 
fifty qualified voters;” and by the fifth section of the same 
article, it is further provided, that “ the citizens who may be in¬ 
cluded in any new county shall vote with the county or counties 
from which they may have been stricken off, for members of Con¬ 
gress, Governor, and for members of the General Assembly, 
until the next apportionment of members to the General Assembly 
after the establishment of such new county.” It is admitted by 
the majority, and will not be controverted by any one, that if the 
Grundy fraction had been included in the new county of Se¬ 
quatchie by the act creating and establishing it, the qualified 
voters of that fraction could not have constitutionally voted 
for Senator in the Eighth Senatorial District. The two acts, the 
one creating the new county and the other adding the Grundy 
fraction, were passed at the same session of the Legislature, and 
are upon identically the same subject matter. It is a well settled 
rule of law, as well as of construction of statutes, that the various 


12 


acts, passed at the same or dlfTerent sessions of the Legislature, 
upon the same subject matter, or, to use the legal phrase, in pari 
materia^ are to be taken and construed as one act of the legisla¬ 
tive mind and will. The Supreme Court of the United States, in 
a recent case, states the rule in these words, “ it is an established 
rule of law, that all acts in pari materia are to be taken together 
as if they were one law,” United States vs. Freeman, 3 How¬ 
ard’s Rep 565, and the binding authority and wisdom of the rule 
thus broadly stated are well sustained by learned wTiters and able 
judges. (1 Kent’s Coin. pp. 461-3. Sedgwick on Statutory and 
Constitutional Law, pp. 247-250.) It will be peiceived, that the 
rule as above laid dowm, embraces statutes passed at different 
sessions of the Legislature; it needs no reasoning to show that the 
rule should be more readily and stringently applied to statutes 
passed at the same session as in this case. The Supreme Court 
of North Carolina has held that the Revised Statutes of that 
State, passed at one session of the Legislature, are but parts of 
one statute, and the Judge, in delivering the opinion, cites the 
English rule in these words, “ all laws passed at one session of 
Parliament were anciently strung together, making so many 
capitula^ or chapters, of one statute. All the acts of one ses¬ 
sion of Parliament, taken together, make properly but one 
statute.” (State vs. Bell, 3 Iredell’s Rep. 508.) Give to the rule 
the force and effect that it has had for centuries in the Courts, 
and the two acts in this case are but one statute, one em¬ 
bodiment of the legislative will. Apply this rule, as we are 
bound to do if we are to settle this controversy according to law, 
and it is conceded by the majority that the voters of the Grundy 
fraction could not vote in the Eight Senatorial District. 

But couple the rule of law with the facts proven in the case, 
and with various expressions of the Legislature in the act of the 
9th December, 1857, and no doubt can remain as to the propriet}', 
if not absolute necessity, of j’egarding the two acts as one. The 
Grundy fraction was included in the original draft of the first act; 
it was stricken out with the expectation that it would be after¬ 
wards added ; if it had not been added, the first act would have 
been inoperative and void. The active friends of the new county 
in the General iVssembly were in all probability cognizant of all 
this, and the expressions '■\fractions counties frequently oc¬ 
curring in the first act,—these facts show that the Legislature was 
looking, when it passed the first act, to the passage of the act of 
the 4th March, 1858, as the completion of a thing begun—the 
creation of a new constitutional county. It may be said in truth 
that the two acts are but one act, because each one would have 
been inoperative without the other, audit is only by regarding and 
treating them as one act of legislative power that the intention of 
their framers can be carried into effect. 

By the fifth section of the apportionment act of 1851-2, it is 


13 


provided “ that the citizens of the new counties, made under the 
amendments to the Constitution, shall vote with the respective 
counties from which they may be taken, lor Senators and Repre¬ 
sentatives until the next apportionment;” and by the last clause 
of the second section of the act creating the new county of Se¬ 
quatchie, it is also provided that “ the citizens thereof shall vote 
with the counties from which they are taken for members of tlie 
General Assembly, until the next apportionment, agreeable to the 
provisions of the filth section of the tenth article of the amended 
Constitution.” It is wholly immaterial in this connection to in¬ 
quire whether the provisions of the fifth section of the tenth arti¬ 
cle of the Constitution, would have applied to the Grundy frac¬ 
tion in the absence of the provisions of the law just quoted. It 
is sufficient that the General Assembly has incorporated the con¬ 
stitutional restriction in the last apportionment law and the organ¬ 
ic law of the new county. Do these provisions, or either one of 
thetn, apply to the Grundy fraction in the relation it sustains to 
the county of Sequatchie? That they do apply and fix the rights 
of the voters in the fraction would seem too plain for debate. The 
section fir>t quoted is prospective in its operation, embracing all 
new counties created after the date of that act and before the 
next apportionment, the other clause quoted is limited in its ope¬ 
ration to the new county then created. It may be said that the 
clause in the act creating the new county is limited in its meaning 
the citizens of the territory out of wffiich it was formed; but it 
would be ridiculously absurd to attempt to confine the fifth section 
of the apportionment act in any such way. Such construction 
would not only defeat the intention of the Legislature, but it would 
make the provision senseless and unmeaning. Were the voters of 
the Grundy fraction at the late election citizens of a county crea¬ 
ted since the date of the last apportionment? If they were citi¬ 
zens of such a county, they must vote with the county from which 
they were taken. It is wholly outside of the language and spirit 
of the section to inquire whether they were made citizens by be¬ 
ing included in tiie original formation of the new county, or were 
added by change of county lines. The fifth section of the tenth 
article of the Constitution is incorporated as apart of the organic 
law of the new county and it is reasonable to conclude that the 
Legislature intended it to have a meaning equally comprehensive 
with that given to it by its framers. It will be seen, when we 
come to examine this section of the Constitution more at length, 
that it is much broader and more comprehensive in meaning than 
it is necessary it should be to embrace the voters of the Grundy 
fraction. The analogies of the law furnish many cases illustrative 
of the principlejapplicable here, if there were no special reasons 
for the construction we are insisting on. The Legislature incor¬ 
porates a town, defining its boundaries and its corporate privileges 
and powers; a subsequent Legislature enlarges its limits, and 


14 


nolhing is said about extending the organic law and ordinances of 
the corporation to the newly added territory; will it be denied but 
that this law and these ordinances attach to and spread over this 
territory ? Suppose the United States should purchase the island 
of Cuba, her inhabitants form for themselves a State Constitution, 
and apply for and be admitted into the Union as a State, would 
not the blessings of the Federal Constitution and of our free in¬ 
stitutions embrace the new State ? So just as soon as the Grundy 
fraction was added to the new county, whether by a change of 
county lines or otherwise, the provisions of the second section im¬ 
mediately fastened themselves upon it a« did all the other provis¬ 
ions of the act, and fixed where its qualified voters should cast 
their voles until the next apportionment. 

It has been said that section 99 of the Code, attaching the county 
of Sequatchie to the Eighth Senatorial District, in and of itself, 
carried the voters of the Grundy fraction to that district; but this 
was so utterly untenable that it has been abandoned, and need 
not be further noticed. It may, however, be contended that this 
section of the Code does indirectly repeal the fifth section of the 
apportionment Act, and the last clause of the second section of 
the Act creating the new county of Sequatchie. No such purpose 
could have been intended by the Legislature when this section of 
the Code was adopted, as a brief statement of facts will fully and 
cle; rly show. It will be remembered that the Act creating the 
coufity of Sequatchie was passed on the 9th day of December, 
1857, and the act adding the fraction from Grundy was passed on 
the 4th day of March, 1858. The part of the Code bringing for¬ 
ward the various provisions of the apportionment Acts of 1851-2, 
was adopted after the creation of the new county, and before the 
addition of the Grundy fraction. It was not improper to include 
the new county in the Eighth Senatorial District at the time that 
part of the Code was prepared and adopted, for then it consisted 
of territory taken from Hamilton county alone. But exact accu¬ 
racy in this part of the Code could not have been intended, and 
was not most certainly attained. By the provisions of the Code, 
the new county of Cumberland, made up of fractions taken from 
counties in the Second, Third, and Fourth Congressional Districts, 
is attached to the Third Congressional District; the new county 
of Putnam, taken from old counties belonging to the Second and 
Fourth Congressional Districts, is attached to both of said Dis¬ 
tricts by name without explanation; and the new county of 
Union is mentioned in the Congressional Districts, but not in the 
Senatorial. In view of these facts, it will require more than 
appears in the Code to work a repeal of the fifth section, and the 
last clause of the second section of rhe Acts referred to. It is no 
part of our purpose, in referring to these inaccuracies in the 
Code, to reflect on the worthy and learned gentlemen who were 
mainly concerned in its preparation. It is matter of wonder, in 


15 


the opinion of the undersigded, that, looking to the magnitude of 
the work, and the time consumed in preparing it, so few errors are 
found in it. But, were it conceded that there was an irreconcila¬ 
ble conflict between the provisions of the Code and the apportion¬ 
ment Act, to that extent the Code would be a nullity, as will be 
seen in the further discussion of this case. 

The majority have not, doubtless for some good reason, dis¬ 
cussed eilhejone of the points the undersigned have urged above, 
although th^ were, to some extent, debated in the deliberations 
of the CommRtee, but have rested their conclusion, as to where 
the voters of the Grundy fraction should have cast their votes, 
upon an effort to show that their representative condition was 
fixed and controlled by the power of the Legislature to change 
county lines, and not by the fourth and fifth sections of the tenth 
article of the Constitution. Two things are assumed, in th 
report of the majority, as proven: First. That the new county of 
Sequatchie was completely organized before the Grundy fraction 
was attached ; and, secondly, that the Grundy fraction was 
transferred to the new county for the mere convenience of the 
citizens living in it, and not to form an integral part of a new 
county ; and upon these assumptions of fact they predicate their 
whole argument. The undersigned controvert these assumptions 
of fact; and if it is shown that the majority have erred in their 
assumptions, their argument and conclusion mu?t fall to the 
ground. 

It is not true, in law, or in fact, in the opinion of the under¬ 
signed, that the new county of Sequatchie was organized and in 
full possession of the rights and privileges incident to organized 
counties at the time the Grundy fraction was added. When a 
nev county is formed out of the territory of an old county, the 
jurisdiction and authority of the old one continues over the citi¬ 
zens and territory of the new one until it is in condition to 
redress civil injuries and punish public wrongs.' This must be so, 
or then the strange anomaly would be presented of a community, 
in the body of a State proverbial for an upright and efficient 
administration of civil and criminal remedies, which was without 
the pale of remedial justice. In the case under investigation, 
this position is much strengthened, if not distinctly established, by 
the provisions of the Private Act of 1857-8, ch. 5, referred to in a 
former part of this Report. The new county of Sequatchie did 
not pass out from underneath the jurisdiction and authority of 
Hamilton county until it was provided with the courts and offi- 
oers necessary “ for the enforcement cf law and the attainment 
of justice.” Did Sequatchie have any such organization when 
the Grundy fraction was added ? The Act creating the new 
county did not and could not have effected such an organization. 
The majority do not attribute any such energy to that Act, but it 
is insisted that the Justices of the Peace, on the first Monday in 


16 


January, 1858, completed the organization, so that the new county 
was as thoroughly an organized county as the counties of David¬ 
son and Rutherford. It does not clearly appear in proof what 
was done by the Justices at the time referred to, or on any other 
County Court day afterwards ; but suppose it is true, as stated in 
the Report of the majority, that they elected or appointed persons 
to all the county offices, the exercise of such a power was a pal¬ 
pable violation of the Constitution, and could not, therefore, aid 
the position of the majority. The Constitution provides that the 
Sheriff, County Court Clerk, Trustee, and Register shall be elected 
by the people: and. by the second section of the seventh article, 
it is declared that, “ Should a a vacancy occur subsequent to an elec¬ 
tion in the office of Sheriff, Clerk, Trustee, or Register, it shall be 
filled by the Justices.” No such contingency as a “ vacancy sub¬ 
sequent to an election” occurred in this case, and it is only upon 
that contingency that the Justices have the constitutional power to 
fill these offices. This view applies with equal force to the 
appointment of a Circuit Court Clerk by the Judge assigned to hold 
the Circuit Court in Sequatchie county. Chief Justice Catron, in 
Smith vs. Normant, 5 Yerg. Rep., 272, says : “ Whenever a State 
Constitution prescribes a particular manner in which power shall 
be executed, it prohibits every other mode of executing such power. 
On that particular subject, the authority is exhausted by the con¬ 
stitutional provision ; and an attempt to render it nugatory by 
law, would be an attempt at repeal.” It may be said that the 
persons elected or appointed by tiie Justices were officers de factoy 
if not de jure ; but the question of their constitutional right to hold 
the offices does not arise incidentally in this case. Chief Justice 
Catron answers this position when he says, in the above case, “It 
is an axiom in government, that what the Legislature has not 
power itself tq do. cannot be conferred on an agent—the principal 
naving no authority, the deputy can have none.” It is proven 
affirmatively that there was no election of county officers by the 
people before the Grundy fraction was added to the new county. 
It does not appear in proof that there has ever been an election of 
county officers by the people. But the undersigned have, in sup¬ 
port of their position on the question of fact, a legislative assertion 
as late as the 17th day of March, 1858, that the new county was 
not organized. 8ee Private Actsol 1857-8, ch. 142, sec. 3, p 349, 
As to the other questions of fact, the undersigned have but little 
to add to what they have already said in previous parts of this re¬ 
port. U is undeniably established by the proof that the Grundy 
fraction was to be embraced in the new county wffien application 
was first made to the last General Assembly for the creation of 
the new county; that it was included in the original draft of the 
first act, and stricken out to abide an interview between the cit¬ 
izens of the traction and their representatives in the other House; 
that a bill of injunction was filed in the month of February, 1858> 


17 


to prevent the establishment of the new county ; that the Hamilton 
fraction did not have the territory or population required by the 
Constitution without the Grundy fraction, and that the fraction 
was added to obviate constitutional objections and to remove 
all just cause of litigation against the establishment and organiza¬ 
tion of the new county. That the Grundy fraction was added in 
order to form an integral part of a new county, and to give con¬ 
stitutional breath and life to what had been done, cannot be, in the 
opinion of the undersigned, the subject of successful controversy. 

Having thus refuted the assumptions of fact, so much relied up¬ 
on by the majority in their report, the undersigned might here dis¬ 
miss the subject; but they think it due alike to the general impor¬ 
tance of the subject and the rights of the contestants and their 
constituents to attack the views of the majority on their own 
ground of fact and constitutional law. Does the fifth section of 
the tenth article of the Constitution apply to and embrace the 
Grundy fraction, although it may have been attached to the new 
county by a legislative change of county lines, and after the new 
county had been fully organized? It will reflect much light upon 
the proper construction of this section of the Constitution, to as¬ 
certain its relation to and influence upon several other provisions 
in that instrument. 

By the fourth section of the second article of the Constitution, 
the General Assembly is clothed with the power of making an 
enumeration of the qualified voters and an apportionment of rep¬ 
resentatives in the Legislature, to be exercised the first time in 
the year 1811, and within every subsequent term of ten years ; 
and it is manifest from the provisions of the fifth and sixth sec¬ 
tions of the same article, that equality of representation was a 
primary and chief object of interest with the membeVs of the Con¬ 
vention. It is no matter of surprise that the members of the Con¬ 
vention were tenacious of this greatest blessing in a republican 
government—equality of representation ; it had formed an ele¬ 
ment of patriotic devotion in our national struggle for an inde¬ 
pendent existence ; it had been transferred from our battle fields 
to an abiding place in our federal constitution; it had made us the 
most happy and free people on the face of the earth, and if it had 
been left out of our State Constitution, that Constitution would 
not have been a reflex of the popular sentiment. When the Le¬ 
gislature passes an apportionment act according to the provisions 
of the Constitution, it may be truly said the legislative power 
over the subject is exhausted for the period of ten years. Why 
the decennial enumeration and apportionment was adopted, it is 
not important to inquire, particularly in this connection. It had 
been introduced into the Constitution of the United States after 
mature deliberation of the Convention as l^e most effectual means 
to secure equality of representation among the several States in 
Congress, and it was doubtless to secure equality of representa- 

2 


18 


tlon in the Legijslatiire that it was incorporated in our State Con¬ 
stitution. As a consequence incident to the exercise of this power, 
the qualified voters have secured to them for the same period of 
ten years a constitutional right to vote in the representative districts 
to which they may be assigned, and it would be very difficult to 
maintain that the Legislature could deprive the voter of this right 
by transferring him against his will to a different district alter the 
right has attached. Had the framers of the Constitution left equal-" 
ity of representation as it was secured and guarded by the above 
mentioned sections of the second article, there would, in all prob¬ 
ability, have been no necessity for the fifth section of the tenth 
article. It was known to them, however, that as the forest was re¬ 
moved and population increased, it would become proper and ne¬ 
cessary to divide the large counties and make new ones, and by 
the exercise of such a power, the I^egislature might, every ten 
years, seriously disturb equaiit}^ of representation and greatly de¬ 
range the decennial apportionment. It was to guard this power 
against producing, directly or indirectly, such results, that the pro¬ 
visions of the fifth section were adopted and placed in such close 
connection with the power it was intended to limit. This section 
is, then, an important restriction on the pow’er to create new 
counties; it is also one of the strongest guaranties in the Consti¬ 
tution that equality of representation shall not be disturbed be¬ 
tween periods of enumeration and apportionment. It is difficult 
to see how any serious controversy could arise as to its true con¬ 
struction. The purpose of the section being one of great impor¬ 
tance to the rights and interests of a free people, it would natural¬ 
ly be expected that it would be broad and comprehensive in 
letter and spirit, and that such interpretation should be given to it 
as would be surest to accomplish its purpose. 

It is said in the report of the majority that it does not apply in 
this case to the Grundy fraction, because no part of Grundy 
county was taken in the original formation of Sequatchie county. 
It would seem that the literal words of the section would refute 
this narrow construction. The expression “ citizens included in 
any new county” is certainly broad enough to include the citi¬ 
zens of territory attached at any time to a new county. There 
cannot be found a single word or combination of words that point 
to the original formation of the new county as the time when the 
“ citizens included” are to be ascertained When a voter, living 
in a new county, presents himself to vote, he may be asked the 
question ; are you a citizen of a county created since the last ap¬ 
portionment act, and from what county were you stricken off? 
What authority have you for asking him, if he were included in 
the new county at the time of its format'on, or added since 
by a change of County lines ? Suppose he were to answer that 
he was added after the new county was created, would he not be 
a “ citizen included in a new county” and be embraced in the 


19 


very letter of the section? There is not room for a dignified play 
upon words in defence of the narrow construction ; indeed there 
is not foundation enough in the language of the section to sup¬ 
port even the shadow of a legal quibble. 

It is a well settled rule of law, particularly^ applicable to this 
case, that the Legislature cannot, in the exercise of its constitu¬ 
tional power, do indirectly that which it cannot do directly. This 
rule has been applied to two of the restiictions and limitations on 
the power to create new counties. By a clause in the fourth sec¬ 
tion of the tenth article, it is provided that “ no line of such (ne\i^) 
county shall approach the Court House of any old county irom 
which it may be taken, nearer than twelve miles.” This clause 
was construed in Gotcher vs. Burrows, 9 Humps. Reps. 588. The 
Supreme Court held that the Court House of an old county could 
not be approached nearer than twelve miles by the lines of a new 
county by a change of county lines, although the letter of the 
clause was confined to the lines of the new county made when it 
was first estabiished. The opinion of Judge McKinney in the 
above case, is a conclusive argument in favor of our construction 
of the fifth section. By the last clause of the fourth section 
above referred to, it is declared that the counties of Marion and 
Bledsoe shall not be reduced below one thousand qualified voters 
each, in forming a new county or counties ” The limitation here 
is in the terms of the clause confined to a reduction of the quali¬ 
fied voters below one thousand by the formation of a new county ; 
yet in the late case of Marion county vs. Grundy county, 5 Sneed’s 
Reps. 490, it is expressly held that Marion county could not he 
reduced below one thousand qualified voters by a change of 
eounty lines. It was argued in these cases as it has been in the 
one now on hand, that the constitutional restrictions did nota[)ply 
to a change of county lines, and that they ceased to be operative 
on the Legislature after a new county had been established; but 
the Supreme Court repudiated the narrow construction insisted 
upon, as this body should do in the case now before it. All ad¬ 
mit that the votes of the Grundy fraction would not have been 
transferred from the Fourteenth to the Eighth Senatorial District, 
if the fraction had been actually included in the new county at 
its formation ; yet it is argued gravely that the transfer could be, 
and was made indirectly, by attaching the fraction to the new 
county after it was established and organized. Did the constitu¬ 
tional restriction—the citizens included in any new county shall 
vote with the county or counties from which they were 
stricken oft”—cease to maintain its force ? Can this constitu¬ 
tional guaranty be so easily evaded? If all this can be done as 
contended for by the majority, then the restriction is nugatory 
and utterly powerless, and the members of the Convention were 
engaged at children’s play when they should have been making a 
State Constitution. 


20 


It h im ossible to attempt to sustain the position of the major¬ 
ity without rnnniii* into,inextricable difficulties. Suppose the Leg¬ 
islature had provided that the act, attaching the Grundy Iraction, 
should not take elfect until the Isl day of May, 1859, what would 
have been the condition of the voters of the Grund}’ fraction at \ 
the late election ? Could they have voted with Grundy county ? 

The majority say that they had no rights in Grundy, and could not 
have voted with Grundy. Could they have voted in the county of 
Sequatchie? They must have been citizens of Sequatchie six 
months next preceding the da}^ of election, to entitle them to vote 
under the first section of the fourth article of the Constitution — 
Would not the voters of the Grundy fraction be disfranchised ? 

If the Legislature can in this way disfranchise qualified voters, 
the solemn guaranty of the Constitution that representation shall 
be equal and permanent for periods of ten years, becomes the 
merest mockery and nonsense. 

There is a vague indefinite idea running through the report of 
the majority, involved in almost as much mystery, if not absurd¬ 
ity, as the ancient theory of transmigration of souls. It is sup¬ 
posed that the voters of the Grundy fraction work out a right to 
vote with Hamilton county in the Eighth Senatorial District, 
through the right of the voters of the Hamilton fraction of Se¬ 
quatchie county, as the creditor of a firm is said to work out a 
lien on partnership effects through the lien of the partners 
themselves upon the same effects for the payment of the firm 
debts. When a new county is created and organized between 
apportionment acts, the qualified voters included in it do not lose 
their political connection with the old county or counties from 
which they were stricken off. This principle is clearly expressed 
in the fifth section of the tenth article of the Constitution. They 
form a distinct county for territorial and civil purposes, but not in 
voting for Governor, members of the General Assembly, and 
Congressmen. This connection existed in full force between the 
voters of Hamilton county and the voters of the Hamilton frac¬ 
tion of Sequatchie‘county, at the time the Grundy fraction was 
added, and it still exists, and will continue to do so until the next 
apportionment, for it is only by a new apportionment that this 
political connection can be dissolved. They vote together not 
because they are included in an old and a new county, but be¬ 
cause they were one political body with the same rights under the 
last apportionment law, which unity of political rights can not be 
dissolved by forming a part of them into a new county. In the 
creation of new counties between the periods of apportionment, 
the Legislature can not give to its voters in a body or in detached 
parts a political status ; the power to do so having been exercised 
by a previous Legislature, is exhausted as we have before shown, 
until a new apportionment is to be made under the Constitution. 

What rights and privileges did the voters of the Grundy frac- 


21 


tion acquire by being added to the new county of Sequatchie? 
They acquired just such rights and privileges as the act of the 
Legislature, creating the new county, had given to the voters 
of the Hamilton fraction. They did not most certainly acquire 
the right to vole with Hamilton county in the Eighth Senatorial 
District, unless they acquired larger rights and privileges than the 
Legislature had the power to give to the voters of the Hamilion 
fraction^ and no one will contend tor so absurd and ridiculous a 
proposition. A simple illustration may perhaps be useful in this 
connection. Ten persons form a partnership in the wholesale 
dry goods business in this city, aiterwards three members of the 
firm form a partnership in the sale of dry goods by the retail, 
still retaining their connection with the first firm ; the retail house 
takes in as equal partners in the retail business three other mem¬ 
bers, both firms make handsome profits, and the partners come 
together to divide the gains, ft uould be preposterous for the 
three members taken into the retail house, to set up claim to an 
equal share in the profits of the whosesale house, upon the 
ground that they were partners of the persons who were part¬ 
ners in those profits ; but not more preposterous than for the 
voters of the Grundy fraction to claim the right to vote with 
Hamilton county in the Eighth Senatorial District, because they 
are connected as citizens of the new county of Sequatchie, with 
the voters of the Hamilton fraction, who are entitled to vote with 
Hamilton county in that Senatorial District. 

It is furthermore contended in the report of the majority that 
the addition of the Grundy fraction was made under the power of 
the Legislature to change county lines; that, wfiien such changes 
are made, the citizens of the territory stricken off*, vote with the 
county to which they are attached, and that whether they are added 
to an old or new county, can make no difl’erence in principle, 
and should make none in practice. The Legislature has, perhaps, 
at each session since the adoption of the new Constitution, made 
slight changes of county lines, and in some instances pretty serious 
ones ; but it is a gross misnomer to call ihe blocking out of thirty 
square miles of the territory of Grundy and adding it to the terri¬ 
tory of Sequatchie, a change of county lines. If such dismember¬ 
ments of old counties are not obnoxious to grave constitutional objec¬ 
tions, the representative districts wliich were intended to be stable 
and permanent for periods of ten years, would be every two years at 
the disposal of grasping party ambition and selfishness, and constitu¬ 
tional restrictions would become as subseivient to party ends as clay 
in the hands of the potter. It is not important in this case to de¬ 
termine where legislative power would begin and where it would end, 
in the alterations of the lines between two old counties. Here it is 
a change, if change in any proper sense it can be called, of the line 
between an old and a new county, and the difference in principle is 
broad and clearly defined. This has been fully shown in our com- 


22 


ments on tlie true construction of the fifth section of the tenth ar¬ 
ticle of the Constitution, and on the rights and privileges of the 
voters of the Grundy fraction in the new county. Under the appor¬ 
tionment law, all the counties mentioned stand upon an c^ual foot¬ 
ing in political and civil privileges, and the qualified voters living in 
them occupy one common platform of political and civil rights. 
When the territory\and population of one old county are added to 
another, they acquire, or are impressed with, all the political and 
civil rights and privileges, appertaining to the old county to which 
they are attached. The dilference may be stated in a few 
words; old counties can confer political rights upon those "who may 
he attached to it, for it has such^rights under the apportionment law, 
but a new county can not confer, such rights, for the plain reason 
that it has no separate political existence, and consequently no po¬ 
litical rights to confer. 

The undersigned have discussed more elaborately the questions of 
constitutional law than they would have done, had not the opinion 
of two eminent lawyers been furnished in writing for the Committee, 
conflicting with the collections and views above presented. They 
had given these questions a pretty full examination before the 
opinion was seen by them; they re-examined the whole case with an 
anxious desire to arrive at a sound conclusion, and their first con¬ 
victions were but the more firmly fixed. In order to test the sound¬ 
ness of their vieivs, they requested verbally and by letter, several 
gentlemen of eminent and marked distinction in the legal profes¬ 
sion, to give opinions in writing, and in reply they have received let¬ 
ters from John Marshall, Esq., Tlios. Washington, Esq., Hon. Ed. 
H. Ewing, and a joint letter.from Gov. Neil S. Browui and Russell 
Houston, Esq., and the letters are herewith filed and made a part of 
this report as corroborative of the views and conclusions of the un¬ 
dersigned. These letters display a thorough investigation of tlie 
question on the part of each genileman, and they are well worthy 
a careful perusal on the part of each Senator on this floor. In ad¬ 
dition to this weight of authority, the proof shows that Mr. Minnis, 
the candidates for Congress, Mr. Rrabson and Mr. Smith, concurred 
in the opinion, and it was so announced before the election that the 
votes of the Grundy fraction could not be counted in the contest 
for Congress and members of the General Assembly with the coun¬ 
ty of Hamilton, or with the Hamilton fraction of Sequatchie, and it 
is worthy of remark that they were not counted in the race for Con¬ 
gress or representative for Hamilton county proper. 

2d. The undersigned having shown, in their opinion, that the votes 
of the Grundy fraction cannot constitutionally or lawfully be counted 
for Senator in the Eighth Senatorial District, will next inquire vdieth- 
er or not such informalities or errors have intervened as will render 
invalid the election held in the Hamilton fraction of Sequatchie coun¬ 
ty. It is admitted by the majority that the contestant, Tibbs, is en¬ 
titled to the seat, if the votes of the Grundy fraction are excluded 


23 


and the votes of the Hamilton fraction counted; hut they pretermit 
the expression of any opinion in their report upon the validity or in¬ 
validity of the election in the last named fraction, in the event that 
the votes of the two fractions cannoi be counted together as a sepa¬ 
rate and distinct county. It will be apparent, however, from the 
views of the undersigned on the first point in the case, that it is pro¬ 
per and necessary for them briefly to review the facts and law bearing 
upon the point now under consideratio'n. 

It is not pretended that any qualified voter, who wished to vote, 
failed to do so; that any person voted who was not entitled ; that the 
ballot-box or poll-books were not guarded by competent persons, act¬ 
ing under oath as inspectors, clerks and officers; or that any fraud 
or improper practice occurred, alfecting, in the least, the free expres¬ 
sion of the choice of the people, or the purity of the elective fran¬ 
chise. It is supposed that the proper sheriff did not hold the election 
m the Hamilton fraction; that it Avas the duty of Mr. Conner, the 
sherifi'of Hamilton county, to hold it; and that it wa^ held by Mr. 
Rankin the acting sheriff of Sequatchie county, without any author¬ 
ity from Mr. Conner to do so. The election Avas held on the right 
day and at the proper places, and certified copies of the poll books 
are oh file as evidence in the case, and are in due form, from Avhich it 
appears that there were three inspectors, tAvo clerks, and a returning 
officer at each civil district. Suppose Mr. Conner, thinking it Avas 
not his duty to do so, failed to hold the election, and Mr. Rankins 
held it under the belief that it Avas his duty to hold it, Avould such a 
mistake on their part render the election invalid ? We do not think 
the election Avould be iiiA^alid even in that state of the facts. Under 
the provisions of the fourth article of the Constitution, as guarded 
and secured in this instance by the fifth section of the tenth article, 
the voters of the Hamilton fraction had the right to vote for one 
or the other of the contestants. The framers of the Constitution, 
looking upon the right of suffrage as sacred and invaluable, have de¬ 
clared that no cjualified Amter shall be excluded from its enjoyment ex¬ 
cept on conviction of infamous crimes, and that he shall be privileged 
from arrest or summons in attending, going to, or returning from 
elections in all cases except treason, felony, or breach of the peace. 
The standard of value thus stamped by the framers of the Constitu¬ 
tion upon the right of suffrage affords a rule by Avhich our legislation 
on the subject should be construed, and by which we ought to consid¬ 
er and determine this controversy. It will not be denied but that 
the various provisions of the Code, regulating the manner of voting 
and defining the duties of the sheriff and other officers, are in the 
main merely directory, and should be construed most liberally to sus¬ 
tain, not to impair, the validity of elections. It is too well settled 
to admit of debate that every presumption shall be made in favor of 
their validity, and hence it is .presumed that persons acting as return¬ 
ing officers, are legally authorized to do so until the contrary is proven. 
The provisions of section 840 of the Code, requiring the sheriffs of 


24 


old counties to hold elections for Governor, Congressmen and mem¬ 
bers of the General Assembly in the fractions taken off to form new 
counties, is merely directory, not imperative or peremptory, for by 
section 843 it is provided that if the sheriff fails to attend in such 
case, any justice of the peace present, if no justice be present, any 
three freeholders may perform the duties of sheriff, and, in case of 
necessity, may act as officers and inspectors. Mr. Cushing, in his 
able treatise on the Law and Practice of Legislative Assemblies, page 
73, in discussing the duties of returning officers in conducting elec¬ 
tions, says: ‘‘That when the law is merely directory, no neglect, or 
mistake, or even improper conduct or irregularity on their part, will 
be fatal, though frequently made punishable by law, if in other re¬ 
spects there has been a substantial and good election. ” He further 
says, on page 74, that “whether the neglect of the requisitions of a 
directory statute will be fatal or not to the proceedings, does not de¬ 
pend so much upon the nature of the neglect, as upon its influence 
in producing the result of the election. ” No one will say that the 
failure of the sheriff of Hamilton county had the slightest “influence 
in producing the result of the election ; ” and aside from this, there 
was a “ substantial and good election.” It can make no difference 
whether the failure resulted from a neglect or mistake of duty; it 
is most unquestionably embraced by the above principle of law, and 
cannot invalidate the election. It may be well argued, in view of the 
liberal rules of construction above mentioned, that there was a sub¬ 
stantial compliance with the provisions of section 843 of the Code, 
above referred to. 

But the undersigned do not admit that there was in fact a failure, 
on the part of Mr. Conner, to do his duty in this matter. It is sat¬ 
isfactorily proved by the positive testimony of Mr. Conner, and the 
somewhat indefinite yet confirmatory testimony of Mr. Rankin, that 
Conner verbally deputized Rankin to hold the election for him. We 
think that the weight of proof will fully sustain this position: but 
it cannot be controverted but that Mr. Conner thought that he had 
deputized Mr. Rankin, and that the deputation had been accepted. 
They had a conversation on the 28th day of June, 1859, in which 
Mr. Conner said he wanted to do just what was right and according 
to law, and if it was his duty to hold the election, he appointed him 
(Mr. Rankin) his special deputy. It appears that after this Mr. 
Conner advised with a lawyer as to his duty, and sent word by Mr. 
Stringer, a candidate for Representative in Hamilton County proper, 
to Mr. Rankin, requesting or directing Mr. Rankin to go on and 
hold the electioTi and send him the returns. It does not appear that 
Mr. Rankin declined to accept the deputation made in the first con¬ 
versation, or that he sent any word back to Mr. Conner in reply to 
the message Mr. Stringer delivered; if Mr. Rankin declined or re¬ 
fused to accept the deputation, it was not communicated to Mr. 
Conner, or known to any other person, until after the day of election. 
In this view of the facts, it can make no difference in what charac- 


25 


ter Mr. Rankin held the election; it will he intended in legal con¬ 
templation, that he held it in the way that the law would make it his 
duty to hold it. It will most certainly be conceded that Mr. Rankin 
could have held it as special deputy under what was said to him by 
Mr. Conner; if this be admitted, the law will presume that he held 
it in just the character he should have done, unless there is proof 
that he repudiated that character before the election. It would be 
monstrous to allow Mr. Rankin, holding two relations to the election, 
to remain silent as to how he intended to act, until the event was 
over, and then permit him to elect. Such a thing would not be tol¬ 
erated in common agencies about trivial matters, much less should it 
e in a matter so important as the validity or invalidity of a popular 
election. In the opinion of the undersigned, there is no light in 
which the facts and law can be vie’wed, that will authorize this body 
to decide that the election in the Hamilton fraction should be de¬ 
clared invalid, and the free voters of it disfranchised. 

The undersigned have thus stated their views at length upon the 
various questions involved in this controversy, and they offer the fol¬ 
lowing resolution as embodying their conclusion, and ask that it be 
adopted. 

Resolved, hy the Senate, That John A. Minnis is not entitled to a 
seat on this floor, as Senator from the Eighth Senatorial District; 
but that Win. H. Tibbs was lawfully and constitutionally elected at 
the late election in this State, Senator for said Eighth District, 
and is entitled, as such Senator, to a seat in this body. 

JORDAN STOKES, . 

JNO. W. RICHARDSON. 


On the 7th of December, 1857, at the session of 1857-8, the 
Legislature of Tennessee passed an act to establish the county of 
Sequatchie, and to change the county lines between certain other 
counties. The said county of Sequatchie, by that act, was formed 
entirely of territory taken from the county of Hamilton, which has 
been previously established. At a subsequent period of the same 
session of the Legislature, to wit: on the 4th day of March, 1858, 
an act was passed, by which a portion of the territory belonging to 
Grundy county, was attached to, and made a part of, the said county 
of Sequatchie. By force of these two acts, the said county of Se¬ 
quatchie, in its present form and dimensions, was brought into 
existence. 

At the late election for Governor, members of Congress, and mem- 




26 


bers of the Legislature, held in August, 1859, the inhabitants residing 
upon that portion of the territory which was taken from the county 
of Grundy, voted in the Senatorial district which includes the county 
of Sequatchie, but does not include the county of Grundy. The 
election precinct, in that part of the present county of Sequatchie, 
which was taken from the county of Grundy, was laid oif and estab¬ 
lished at the last apportionment, while it belonged to the county of 
Grundy, and at that time, before the reduction of its limits, the 
whole of Grundy county, (including the portion since attached to 
Sequatchie) belonged to a different Senatorial and Congressional 
district, from those in which Sequatchie county is situated, and still 
does. 

Upon these facts, the question submitted for my consideration, 
is, whether the vote of that precinct in Sequatchie county, which is 
formed of territory taken from Grundy county, can be counted in 
the Senatorial election, for a district of which Grundy county forms 
no part, under the Constitution and laws of Tennessee ? 

I shall illustrate my opinion in this case, by addressing myself at 
the outset, to an opinion which I have seen in circulation, signed by 
two highly respectable gentlemen of the bar, sustaining the validity 
of the vote in question, as being properly a part of the vote cf 
Sequatchie county, and to the arguments founded thereon, which 
are nothing more than a repetition of the grounds taken in said 
opinion, if that opinion can be overthrown, then, the authors of it, 
and those who have adopted it, have nothing left to stand upon ; as, 
upon a question w^hich has excited so much interest, it is to be pre¬ 
sumed, that all the ingenuity which could be exerted, has been elici¬ 
ted. In the first place, the attempt is made in that opinion, to prove 
that Sequatchie county was fully established, before any portion of 
its territory was taken from Grundy. And for this purpose, it 
quotes the title of the act of the Tth of December, 3857, which is, 
“an act to establish the county of Sequatchie,” and to “ change the 
county lines,” between other counties mentioned in the act. It also 
puts within marks of quotation, the concluding section of the act, 
which is, “ that this act shall take efiect from and after its passage.” 
At the utmost that can be claimed for the county of Sequatchie on 
the score of age, it was not quite three months old, when the act of 
the 4th of March was passed, and as yet, it was only in a process of 
formation ; for, it was still competent for the Legislature, if they 
had thought proper, to attach other portions of territory to it, be¬ 
sides that taken from Grundy county, before it came from their 
hands as a whole. It appears also, from the act passed on the 17th 
of March, 1858, ch. 142, during the same session of the Legisla¬ 
ture, that it was not then organized. For, by the 3d section of 
that act, it is provided, “ that, if the Chancery Court of Bledsoe 
county, shall dismiss a bill of injunction, filed therein against the 
commissioners of the county of Sequatchie, to prevent the organiza- 


27 




tion and estahlisJment of said county,” and no appeal shall be taken 
from the decree of said court, then, it sliall be the duty of the 
Chancellor, to prescribe a future day for the holding of an elec¬ 
tion in said county for the election of county officers.” Without 
remarking upon the extraordinary nature of this direction to the 
Chancelior, and without discussing the question, as to whether 
a county can be considered fully established, until it is organized 
and ready to put in exercise its powers and functions, I will sim¬ 
ply state, that by the terms of said act, the county was only to go 
into operation upon a contingency; which affords abundant evi¬ 
dence, that in the view of the Legislature itself, it was not 
deemed to be yet established, but only in fieri. 

The opinion upon which I am commenting, takes a distinction 
between the establishment of a new county, as referred to in the 
4th and 5ih sections of the 10th article of the Constitution of 
Tennessee, and what the authors of that opinion are pleased to 
call, “a mere change of county lines.” According to that opin¬ 
ion, ther'county of Grundy, which was an old county, and Se¬ 
quatchie county, which had been established ever since the 7th of 
December, independently of the fraction taken afterwards from 
Grundv, and from that date, was placed uoon an equal footing, 
with equal powers and privileges, in all respects, as other counties 
in the State;” just lay along side of one another, and some how 
or other, (we are not informed how) must have made a compact 
to ‘‘change” their common boundary, in conformity to the wishes 
and convenience ()f‘the people of both counties, to carry out which, 
was the sole object of the Act of the 4th of March. Of course, it 
requit es two parties to make a compact, and hence the necessity 
of insisting, that the county of Sequatchie then had an existence, 
“ and stood upon an equal footing, with equal powers and privi¬ 
leges, in all respects, as other counties in the State.” Com¬ 
pacts, mot cover, respecting the “mere change of county lines,” 
are such trivial things, that they were beneath the notice of the 
Constitution, winch has said nothing about them, es nomine, and 
therefore has left them to be determined by the “ wishesf^ and the 
“ convenience,” of tlie particular ‘‘ communities” concerned—by 
which is meant, the two adjoining counties. That is the argu¬ 
ment, intelligibly stared, which is contained in that opinion. But, 
how could the county of Sequatchie enter into such a compact, 
vviien it was not organized, and had not a single officer, of any 
kind, through whom it could act, on the 7th of December? When 
was this compact for the “change of county lines” made, Tmade 
at all ? We see fi om the act of the 17th of March, that the coun¬ 
ty of Sequatchie was not then organized; and was not permitted 
to organize, until the decision of a suit then depending in Bled¬ 
soe county, to prevent the establishment of the county of Se¬ 
quatchie altogether. When, or how, that suit was decided, I do 
not know ; but certainly not until the then next term of the Chan- 


eery Court. By that time the Legislature had adjourned, and 
has not been in session since—this contested election having in¬ 
tervened in the mean time. If the Legislature of 1857-8 left 
their work unfinished, on account of which, this “ change of 
county lines” was not effected by that body, then, something else 
had to be done, in order to produce that change. If the “change 
of county lines” is a mere matter of internal police, as seems^to 
be insinuated in that opinion, then it would be competent for the 
counties of Grundy and Sequatchie, by compact or agreement, to 
make such change. But, no evidence of any such compact or 
agreement is brought forward, or pretended ; not even the spuri¬ 
ous evidence on such a subject, for an election by the counties im¬ 
mediately interested, and it is manifest, that the county of Se¬ 
quatchie went into operation, and assumed its station among the 
other counties of the State, with the Grundy fraction attached as 
a component part of it, under the previous legislation that had 
taken place. Considered as a “ mere change of county lines,” 
made by compact, I invite attention to the nature and merits of 
the compact. Grundy county cedes all the territory, and all the 
population, and gets nothing in return ! It is no wonder, there¬ 
fore, that Grundy county, or Hamilton (from which two counties 
the whole of Sequatchie was taken) was dissatisfied with the ar¬ 
rangement, and endeavored by suit, to prevent the establish¬ 
ment of Sequatchie county. Such a contract between individuals, 
I am very certain, could not be enforced ; it being based on no 
consideration whatever on one side, and securing every advan¬ 
tage on the other. It would be so monstrous, that it wmuld shock 
the moral sense of all mankind, and afford indubitable evidence, 
that one of the parties was either too imbecile to make a con¬ 
tract or, that he hadbeen imposed upon and defrauded, and that 
the other, was too unconscientious to claim the interposition of a 
court of justice in his behalf. If carried into effect, however, it 
would bring about a “ change of county lines,” and that, accord¬ 
ing to the opinion under consideration, is all that has been done 
in this 3ase. Regarding it as an act of sovereign legislation, 
afiecting the two counties of Grundy and Sequatchie only, and 
involving no considerations of public policy, would the injustice 
of the act toward-i Grundy county, be different in a moral point 
of view ? And yet, there is equally a “ change of county lines,” 
whether effected by legislation, or by compact, and the opinion re¬ 
ferred to says, “ ii was certainly never intended by the framers of 
the Constitution, to restrict the powers of the Legislature to make 
local changes in counties, to meet the wishes of the people, and 
the convenience of particular communities.” This is equivalent 
to a plain declaration, that the “ change” which has been brought 
about in this instance, was merely “ local,” that is, that it did not 
extend beyond the counties of Grundy and Sequatchie, has no ex¬ 
ternal bearing or operation, and affected no other interest but theirs, 


29 


and that the Legislature was under no constitutional restriction 
whatever, in making such “ changes,” but must be left for their 
guide, to the ‘‘ wishes of the people, and the convenience of par¬ 
ticular communities,” by which is meant, not the whole comrnu- 
nity, hut only the counties whose “ local” affairs, as matters of in¬ 
ternal police, they undertake to regulate. I respect the enlight¬ 
ened wishes of the people, and think their real convenience ought al¬ 
ways to be promoted ; but, 1 utterly repudiate, as a standard of 
construction for the Constitution, what may be so easily assumed 
as their wishes, or as their convenience, whether in application to 
particular counties, or to the entire State. Adopt that standard, 
and it will always be liable to be perverted to the worst of pur¬ 
poses. The Constitution, which has a controlling influence over 
legislation, has expressed the wishes and convenience of the peo¬ 
ple, and which is to be the same through all time, or until altered 
in the mode prescribed by it, will be one thing this year, and 
another thing two years hence, according to the fluctuation of 
• parties Temporary convenience, and that perhaps arrogated, 
will subserve the purpose of removing a constitutional obstacle, 
as well as an}^ other ; and the pretended wishes of the people, like 
the indefinite name of liberty, can be made a warrant for the per¬ 
petration of any political enormity. I conclude my observations 
on this head, by remarking, that the wishes of the people of Grun¬ 
dy county have never been consulted, so far as I can ascertain, 
and it would seem, from the suit referred to in the act of the 17th of 
March, that the establishment of Sequatchie county, by which 
their “county line was changed,” was opposed to their wishes. 
As to their convenience, that certainly was not consulted by the 
“change of their county line,” if there was no other considera¬ 
tion involved in the act of changing it, for, the county of Grundy 
was thereby deprived of both territory and population, without 
getting any equivalent at all—her other lines remaining as they 
were before. 

I do not deny, that the Legislature of Tennessee has power to 
establish new counties, and for that purpose, that it can take ter¬ 
ritory from other counties adjoining, either at the formation of 
a new county, at the beginning, or in the subsequent enlargement 
of it. But, I do deny, that if, in the establishment of a new 
county, (that is, one absolutely new, which never existed before) 
or in the subsequent enlargement of it, the “county lines should 
be changed,” as they necessarily must be : that that fact alters the 
general character of the act done, under the Constitution of Ten¬ 
nessee, from being one of political regulation, applicable to the 
whole State, and converts it into a ‘‘mere change of county lines,” 
exclusively confined to the counties whose lines may be thus 
changed. This last proposition, so far at least, as it relates to ad¬ 
ditions of territory made to counties already established, is what 
is impliedly advanced by the opinion I am examining, though not 


so 


expressly asserted. There can be no other reason giren, why it 
became so material in the estimation of the authors of that opin¬ 
ion, to show, or rather to attempt to show, that Sequatchie county 
was completely established by the act ofthe7th of Dec , exclusively 
of the fraction afterwards taken from Grundy. It could then be 
contended, that the fraction taken from Grundy county, was no 
new county of itself, and in that way, Grundy county and Se¬ 
quatchie county both being i^ existence, and therefore neither of 
them a new county, they could reach their conclusion, that there 
had only been “ a change of county lines” between them. It is 
true, that-a “ change of county lines” was effected ; but, let it be 
recollected, that an argument which proves too much, is worth 
nothing at all. Admitting the position that Sequatchie county 
came into existence on the 7th of December, independently of 
Grundy: still, it was a new county, in relation to Hamilton, from 
which the whole of its territory was taken, at that date. From 
this it follows, as an inevitable sequence, that the whole of Se¬ 
quatchie county should hav^e voted with the county of Hamilton, 
and under the superintendence of its officers, until tjie next ap¬ 
portionment, whether they both belonged to the sarn^ electoral 
district or not. Where the fraction taken from Grundy, and an¬ 
nexed to Sequatchie, could have voted, in consistency with this 
position, 1 am unable to perceive, as no part of it was taken from 
Hamilton, and according to the opinion, it was bound to vote with 
Sequatchie. It results, that if the fraction taken from Grundy 
county, could not vote with the county from which it was taken, 
until the next apportionment,it could vote nowhere and is disfran¬ 
chised. That would be a dreadful consequence, to be produced 
by the “mere change of county lines”! The opinion which 1 am 
exposing, involves this further absurdity : that it holds, that no 
county can be considered in the sense of the Constitution, 

except at the very time of its creation, and when that time passes, 
which it does as soon as the bill for the establishment receives the 
signatures of the Speakers of both houses, then, it is no longer a 
county, in any sense, and that any legislation which might 
take place afterwards^ for the extension or reduction of its area, 
would be merely a change of county lines.” 1 maintain that 
such a construction, would completely nullify the 5th section of 
the loth aiticle of the Constitution, which is in the following 
words: “ The citizens who may be included in any new county, 
shall vote with the county or counties from which they may have 
been stricken off, for members of Congress, for Governor, and for 
members of the General Assembly, until the next apportionment 
of members to the General Assembly, after the establishment of 
such county.” 

Now, what is meant by a ^^new countyy' when spoken of in this 
connection ? It has no reference to the age of a county as measured 
by time, because that vfould create a distinction betw^een different 


31 


counties, all established since the last apportionment. The words, 
neio county^'' then, simply mean any county established since the 
last apportionment. Were not the citizens residing upon that por¬ 
tion of territory which was taken from Grundy county, afterwards 
‘‘included in the new county” of Sequatchie? Was not that por¬ 
tion of territory “stricken off” from Grundy county and attached 
to the “new county” of Sequatchie, which was established since the 
last apportionment ? And, where were these citizens of Grundy 
county, that were thus turned over to the “ new county ” of Se¬ 
quatchie, to vote, until the next apportionment ? In the express' 
language of the Constitution, they were to vote “with the county or 
counties from which they may have been stricken off.” Here is a 
positive restriction upon their voting any where else; the Legisla¬ 
ture could not give them the power of voting out of the county from 
which they were stricken off, without infracting the Constitution; 
and, consequently, if they did vote with the “new county” of Se¬ 
quatchie, to which they were attached, their vote was illegal and 
void. It is said, however, that there was a “ mere change of county 
lines,” and that that is an avoidance of any violation of the Consti¬ 
tution by the Legislature, and made the citizens of Grundy county 
citizens of the “new county” of Sequatchie, from the beginning. 
But, were they not, in point of fact, citizens of Grundy county until 
“stricken off,” and were they not “stricken off!’ by the act of the 
4th of March, which was subsequent to the 7th of December, when, 
as is contended in that opinion, Sequatchie county was established, 
without including this territory or the citizens of Grundy ? Could 
the Legislature, by merely “changing county lines,” do indirectly, 
and by means of a fiction in this case too, what they could not do 
directly, and thus override the Constitution ? Under this doctrine 
of “changing county lines” ad libitum^ in no case that I can con¬ 
ceive of, would this section of the Constitution have any application, 
unless the new county to be established should not be within the 
limits of any other county; and the portion to be stricken off from 
a different county and added to it, should be entirely uninhabited, and 
without a single voter. If that be so, as it undoubtedly is, it would 
be impossible in this State either to establish a new county, or to 
cut off territory and population from an old one, without “changing 
county lines.” How could you carve a new county out of a an old 
one, without “changing county lines?” Were not the “county 
lines of Hamilton changed” by the establishment of Sequatchie? 
And was not the same effect produced by striking off from Grundy 
a portion of her territory and inhabitants and adding them to Se¬ 
quatchie ? But, these were inevitable incidents to the exercise of 
a lawful power, namely : the establishment of a new county, and the 
extension of its boundaries by the annexation, of more territory, 
taken from adjoining counties. But, the opinion referred to converts 
this incidental consquence into a distinct and independent power, to 
be exercised by the Legislature at discretion, and when so exercised, 


lakes the case entirely out of the operation of the fifth section of the 
tenth article of the Constitution, and leaves it a dead letter. The 
Constitution was intended for practical objects, present and future, 
and when it Avas adopted all the territory of this State Avas included 
Avithin the limits of some county or another, and all the counties 
Avere then inhabited more or less, sufiiciently so, at least, to be all rep¬ 
resented in the Convention and in the Legislature; and to prevent 
any portion of their territory from being stricken off^ for the purpose 
of forming a ncAV county, or being added to an old one, without carry¬ 
ing along Avith it some Alters. And let it be borne in mind, that if * 
but a single voter Avas thus transferred into a noAV county, his right 
of voting Avould be as much protected by the Constitution as if there 
AA^ere five hundred, or any larger number; and that protection could 
not be extended to him, unless he should claim to exercise it in the 
place specified by the Constitution, that is, not m, simply, but ‘^with ” 
the county from which he had been stricken off.” There is no neces¬ 
sity, hoAvever, except for the sake of running out a principle to its 
consequences, for descending to such minutiae, as by the fourth sec¬ 
tion of the tenth article of the Constitution every neAV county is re¬ 
quired to contain at least three hundred and fifty square miles of 
territory, and a population of four hundred and fifty qualified voters. 

It is, therefore, impossible, as it seems to me, to suffer the citizens 
residing in that portion of Grundy county which was stricken off* for 
Sequatchie county, to vote ‘■‘‘with’' Sequatchie, AAuthout conniving at 
a palpable violation of the Constitution; and it is perfectly absurd 
to say, that the framers of the Constitution intended to permit 
“ local changes,'’ which Avould have the direct and unavoidable effect 
of superceding the Constitution itself, which Avas the work of their 
own hands. 

There was, and still is, a very sensible and conclusive reason for re¬ 
quiring, in such a case as this, the citizens of Grundy county who 
AV'ere lopped off from that county and attached as citizens to the 
county of Sequatchie, to vote ivith" the county of Grundy, until 
the next apportionment. By the fourth section of the second article 
of the Constitution of Tennessee, it is provided, “ that an onumera- 
tion of the qualified voters and an apportionment of the representa¬ 
tives in the General Assembly shall be made in the year one thousand 
eight hundred and forty-one, and within every subsequent term of 
ten years.” And by the fifth section of the same article, it is pro¬ 
vided, “ that the number of representatives shall, at the several 
periods of making the enumeration, be apportioned among the sev¬ 
eral counties or districts, according to the number of qualified voters 
in each, and shall not exceed seventy-five, until the population of the 
State shall be one million and a half, and shall never exceed ninety- 
nine ; provided that, any county having two-thirds of the ratio shall 
be entitled to one member.” From these express proAusions in the 
Constitution, it is manifest and undeniable, that the voters living on 
that fraction of Grundy county that was annexed to Sequatchie, 


33 


could not vote with ” Sequatchie consistently with the Constitution. 
The whole of Sequatchie county, taken as a county distinct from the 
Grundy fraction, was situated at ,the time of the election, and still 
is, in a diifereiit Senatorial and Congressional District from that to 
which Grundy county belongs, under the last apportionment. To 
receive, therefore, the vote of the Grundy fraction as being part of 
the vote of Sequatchie county, would disturb and unsettle the last 
apportionment, pro tanto, and let it be remembered, that an infrac¬ 
tion of the Constitution in a small particular, although not so exten¬ 
sive in its consequences, is still an infraction, as being in conflict 
with its provisions and without authority, and will serve to pave the 
way, upon some future occasion, to some more important and daring 
aggression upon the same instrument. If the Legislature should 
reject this vote, the fault that has been committed will rest upon the 
Sheriffs of Sequatchie and Grundy counties—upon the former, for 
opening a poll improperly and unlawfully in the said fraction, and 
upon the latter, for not opening a poll in it at all. But, if the Legis¬ 
lature should sanction this proceeding, they will be equally involved 
in it with the said Sheriffs, and more liable to censure as they will 
have done it upon full deliberation ’ and in opposition to all the 
lights that could be thrown on the subject. Establish the 
precedent, than which there can be none so high or authoritative 
on such a subject, and then, under the pretence of ^‘changing 
county lines,” and by converting the Legislature into a mere court 
of police, the next electoral district may be turned over into some 
other, and so on, increasing in the hardihood of the operation as party 
convenience may require, until the last apportionment is entirely 
deranged and the whole State completely Gerrymandered before the 
arrival of the time for making the next apportionment. That expe¬ 
dient for controling elections, independently of its being a palpable 
violation of our Constitution, is odious and abominable; because, 
whether resorted to by one party or the other, both the object and 
tendency of it is, to prevent fair voting and to deprive as large a 
portion of the community as possible of their rightful influence in 
public affairs. Was it no curtailment of the rights of those voters 
who belonged to the fraction taken from Grundy county, to be trans¬ 
ferred to a different county, like serfs, with the soil, and compelled, 
perhaps, to vote for men whom they did not know and did not pre¬ 
fer, or not be allowed to vote at all, for men whom they had long 
known and did prefer ? Or, it might be, to help out in a pinch, in 
the election of some men of opposite parties to their own, because 
there was no other alternative left to them. 

According to the views which I have presented above, it is im¬ 
material whether the county of Sequatchie was fully established 
by the act of the 7th of December or not. I will remark, how¬ 
ever, in passing, that it is strange, that the authors of said opinion 
should have attached so much importance to the concluding sec ¬ 
tion of said act, about its taking effect from and after its passage, 
3 


34 


when that is the rule of construction, even if that section had 
been omitted. It is no less strange, that the Legislature should un¬ 
dertake to speak a county into existence and to consider it fully 
established, just by its own ipse dixit, when it was not yet organ¬ 
ized, nor capable of perlorming a single function that is necessarily 
incident to every county. “ Let there be light and there was 
light,” is no more than what is assumed tor them to have 
achieved by that exploit. The reason why a portion of Grundy 
coutity was attached to the new county of Sequatchie by’the act 
of the 7th of December, 1 suspect to be about this: that it was 
ascertained, or, at least feared, that there might not be territory 
or population enough included in the general limits prescribed for 
Sequatchie county, to authorize the establishment ol a new coun¬ 
ty, under the Constitution, and, therefore, the act of the 4th of 
March was passed. This last act does not profess to be amenda¬ 
tory of the former, but it is upon the same subject and was 
passed at the same session. These acts are not in conflict with 
each other, and each comes in aid of the other, and they must 
both be construed together in order to give full force to each. 
The second section of the act of the 7th of December is in these 
words : ‘’The said county of Sequatchie shall have all the pow¬ 
ers and privileges and be subject to all the restrictions of other 
counties in this State ; and the citizens thereof shall vote with the 
^ counties from which they are taken, for members of the General 
Assembly until the next apportionment, agreeable to the provisions 
of the fifth section of the tenth article of the amended Constitu¬ 
tion.” And why should not the citizens of Grundy county be 
allowed to vote vrith the county from which they were taken ? 
They were not dependent for the exercise of that right upon the 
Legislature, who did not think proper, or v/ho omitted as a thing 
that was superfluous, to extend it to them by the act of the 4ih of 
March; it was secured to them by the Constitution, and they 
claim and hold it under the Constitution. The only reason 
assigned in the opinion which ] am controverting for this differ¬ 
ence between citizens of the same State, standing upon an equal 
footing in all respects, is, that where a county is already 
established the addition of other territory to it, taken from an¬ 
other county, is merely a ‘‘local change,” which it is competent 
for the Legislature to make. Is the Constitution a HocaV^ law ? 
Is it a private law ? Or, is it a general law, applicable to every 
citizen and every county alike, and paramount to all other laws ? 
Can a local change ” operate as a repeal of the general law of 
apfforuonment ? How indefinite is the term “ local change ?” 
One county is locals in reference to its geographical position : but 
are all the relations between it and the next county, or between 
it and the State at large, locoll One State of this Union is local 
in the same sense, in regard to another; yet no two States can 
make a treaty or compact with each other, without the assent of 


85 


CongTess, even although that treaty or compact should relate only 
to their own local affairs. This plainly shows, that “ local changes,” 
as they are called, may have a very important external bearing, 
and when they do, the word local no longer expresses their proper 
character. 

It surely cannnt he necessary to pursue this investigation fur¬ 
ther. I have the highest respect for both of the gentlemen whose 
opinio!) 1 have been examining; but, after the best reflection th.at 
I can bestow on the subject, I am irresistibly brouglit to tlie con- 
elusion, that they have fallen into a most egregious error. The 
source of that eri or is very evident to me, and is one which often 
occurs at the bar, in construing legal instruments, namely : the 
.straining after a distinction where none really exists. In the first 
place, they present the inference without stating it, that Se¬ 
quatchie county was not a 7ieio county on the 4th of March ; be¬ 
cause it had been establi-'hed on the 7th of r3ecember. They then 
assume a distinction, according to the tenor of their argument, be¬ 
tween the annexation of terriioiy taken from an old county, to be 
incorporated with a new one, at the time of the formation of the 
new count}’", and after it had been established. Having shown, as 
they seem to think, that Sequatchie county was not a new one, 
then, that the terriiory ot Grundy county could be annexed with¬ 
out entitling, the inhabitants still to vote with that county, or, that 
it would give them a right to vote with Sequatchie county and 
no where else. This position again, they do not state in so many 
words, but that is tiie sco[)e of their argument. They do not 
appear to recollect, or if they do, it does not arrest their progi ess, 
that that distinction would place citizens wIk) were to be attached 
to a new or to an old county, upon an entirely different footing, 
when the injury and inconvenience to the one would be precisely 
the same as that to the other. Neither did they bear in mind, that 
Sequatchie county itself, although in their sense an old county, 
was composed of a liacti<m taken i’rom Hamilton, and was, by 
the express terms of the act under which it wa - establistu d, 
favored with the privilege of voting with the county from which 
it had been taken—its own dear alma mater. But even all that was 
not enough to make out the case Resort was had finally to the 
position, which is almost the only one distinctly stated in the 
opinion, that this whole affair was nothing bu. a “ local chaiiire.” 
And so the words, ^ iocal and neioT taken in their most confined 
sense, and evidently perverted in their application to the subject 
under discussion, are to be made a touchstone for the deci.-iou of 
a grave constitutional question. If a di-tinction is sound, it can be 
definitely and clearly stated ,• if a proposition is maintainabie, it 
can be siqiported by something better than vague generalitit s, the 
pertinency of which is not shown ; if a conclusion from any 
premises is not self-evident, it is worthy of being demonstrated 
before it can with propriety be confidently asserted. 


36 


I can perceive no express authority in the Constitution, for muti¬ 
lating an old county but foi* the purpose of giving additional territory 
and population to a new one. (See 4th Section of Article 10.) That 
was undoubtedly the purpose, and no other, for which the fraction 
was taken from Grundy county ; and that the Legislature so con¬ 
sidered it, that is, that Sequatchie county was a new county, then 
only about to be formed, is manifest, not only from the actual pro¬ 
visions, but from the whole tenor, of the act of the 7th of December. 

# I refer here more particularly to the fact of its being taken alto¬ 

gether from the county of Hamilton: and to the enactment of the 
2d section, in regard to its voting with that county, until the next 
apportionment. The Legislature could not, as I apprehend, by vir¬ 
tue of its sovereiirn legislative power, lop off from an old county, a 
portion of its territory and inhabitants, for the mere purpose of 
turning them loose, and freeing them from the jurisdiction of any 
county. They would still be under the protection and restraint of 
the Constitution. And if the purpose should be to give them to an¬ 
other old county, in the adjustment of their boundaries for the sake 
of mutual convenience, it could only be _^done by some general law 
which should preserve in some manner or another the last apportion¬ 
ment intact. If Hamilton county and Grundy county wej:e both 
old counties, and both lost territory and population, and gained 
nothing, I cannot admit that that is an adjustment of boundary, 
even if there is a common boundary between them, about which I 
am not informed. If Sequatchie county was a new county, in re¬ 
gard to Hamilton, I cannot see why it was an old county, in regard 
to Grundy, before it was organized, or its limits permanently fixed, 
nor why any difference should be made between them, to the preju¬ 
dice of Grundy, when they were similarly situated in all respects. 
If Sequatchie county was a new county, in regard to Hamilton, as 
it unquestionably was, and the fraction taken from Grundy was in¬ 
corporated with it, and become a component part of it, at the same 
session, no good reason can be assigned why the adjunct should not 
afterwards partake of the same character that was possessed by the 
principal—namely, that of being a portion of a new county, and 
not an old one. Then, why should not the Grundy fraction of Se¬ 
quatchie county be placed upon the same footing as the Hamilton 
fraction, and each be required to vote the county from which 

it was stricken off, in conformity with the Constitution ? 

If my argument tends, as I admit it does, to throw out the whole 
vote of Sequatchie county, unless the fractions of which it is com¬ 
posed respectively voted with the counties from which they were ta¬ 
ken, I cannot help it, if that consequence follows the running out of 
the principles which I have laid down. 

For the above reasons, I am of opinion—1st. That the election 
for members of Congress and members of the General Assembly 
should have been held by the Sheriff of Hamilton county, in thatfrac- 
tion of Sequatchie county which was taken from Hamilton; and that 


37 


in order to vote Hamilton county, the votes should have been 

cast for the candidates proposing to represent that county, in Con¬ 
gress and in the Legislature. 

2d. I am of the same opinion, in regard to the votes of that 
fraction taken from Grundy county; and that the election there 
should have been held by the Sheriff of Grundy county, and his 
returns of the votes cast in that fraction, should have been made as 
part of the vote in that Senatorial and Congressional District. 

3d. That if the polls opened in those fractions, and the elections held 
in them, were not opened by the Sheriffs of the aforesaid counties re¬ 
spectively, and the elections held by them, or some other lawful 
authority, that the electi">ns were void, and in that case that the cer¬ 
tificates of those Sheriffs would be unofficial acts and no evidence 
whatever of the state of the vote. A man’s voting out of the 
proper county “mYA” which he should vote, and for a person to rep¬ 
resent a different county or district, whether in Congress or the Leg¬ 
islature, is manifestly no vote at all: as such a man has no author¬ 
ity to constitute a representative for a different county or district, 
from that to which hj law he is assigned as a voter. 

4th. That if the elections in said fraction, or either of them, 
were so held and conducted that the vote cannot be received, the 
citizens residing upon those fractions having voted under a delusion, 
which delusion was brought about by the public officers of the State, 
it then becomes a question witli the Legislature, whether to throw 
out these votes entirely, and decide the election without counting 
them, leaving these fractions unrepresented, or to award a new 
election. This question has not oeen submitted to me, and I do 
not undertake to decide it. THOS. WASHINGTON. 


Messrs. Jordan Stokes and Jno. W. Bnchardson : 

You have asked us for our opinion upon the questions involved in 
the contested election between Messrs. Minnis and Tibbs, now pend¬ 
ing before the Senate. We understand that these questions are lim¬ 
ited to the’single proposition as to where the citizens of thatjraction 
of Grundy county added to the county of Sequatchie by the act of 
1857-8, were entitled to vote in the last election. If they fall un¬ 
der the provisions of section 5th, article 10th, of the Constitution of the 
State, they should have voted in Grundy county, and could have voted 
nowhere else and can vote nowhere else until the next apportionment. 
That section of the Constitution provides, that ‘Hhe citizens who may be 
includedm any new county, vote with the county or counties horn 
which they may have been stricken off, for members of Congress, for 
Governor, and for members of the General Assembly, until the next 
apportionment of members to the General Assembly after the estab- 



38 


lisliment of such new county.” By an act of the General Assem¬ 
bly, passed December 9th, 1857, Sequatchie county was created, 
made up of territory taken from the county of Hamilton, and after¬ 
wards, and at the same session, an act was passed, dated the 4th day 
of March, 1868, detaching a portion of Grundy county and annex¬ 
ing it to the county of Sequatchie. This addition from the county 
of Grundy could have formed only a part of Sequatchie, and could 
stand on no other or higher ground than the remaining portion de¬ 
tached from Hamilton. When annexed, it constituted a part of a 
neio county^ and must share all the disqualifications of a new county, • 
and can aspire to nothing higher or greater. It must vote with the 
county from which it is taken, or w'e have the anomaly of its voting 
with Hamilton from which it“was not taken, and to wdiich it was not 
attached by the act of annexation. 

We cannot perceive the difference between a case where a given 
territory is incorporated into a new county in the act creating the 
county, and where it is added to the new county by a subsequent act, 
and especially at the same session. In both instances the citizens 
thereof are alike included the new county,” and then, “they 

shall vote in the county or counties from which they are taken.” 

It is, perhaps, idle to undertake to speculate as to the reasons 
which operated on the framers of the Constitution in adopting the 
section above quoted. But, no doubt stability and uniformity in the 
power of the electoral districts, from one period of apportionment 
to another, constituted the leading motives of that provision ; other¬ 
wise it would be in the power of the Legislature, at every session, to 
remodel, by indirection, the whole State, or a considerable portion of 
it, wliich would be productive of confusion and mischief. To this 
may be added the reflection, that some time must elapse before the 
new county can be fully organized, and its precise- boundaries fully 
known to its citizens, and it was right to protect them in the familiar 
use of their places of voting, until the expiration of due notice ; and 
that notice they have prescibed. Whether these reasons or any oth¬ 
ers be just or not, the Constitution is its own interpreter, and plain¬ 
ly and without any qualification, prohibits the citizens of a new 
county, fertile time being, from voting anywdiere else ihan in the 
county or counties from which they are taken. This is not the ordi¬ 
nary case of changing county lines, or taking a piece of territory from 
one old county and adding it to another old county already in a full or¬ 
ganic state. Even this is subject to grave exception, as it is an eva¬ 
sion of the spirit of the Constitution, but it does not come within its 
express prohibition. The county to which the annexation is 
made is not a new comity, and the citizens added are nf)t citizens 
of a new county. The size of the territory taken from Grundy 
shows that the object was not to straighten a line, or to accommo¬ 
date local convenience, but to create a new county, or to erdarge 
one already laid out. See the case of Gotcher ys. Burrows, 9th, 

585. 


39 


We have no hesitation in the conviction that thQ citizens in that 
fraction of Sequatchie county should have voted in the cou?i‘ty of 
Grundy, and were not entitled to vote anywhere else. 'IdiCv^e 
views are the result of careful deliberation, and are respectlully 
submitted for whatever they may be worth. 

NEILL S. BROWN, 
'RUSSELL HOUSTON. 

Nashville, Oct. 10th, 1859. 


Jefferson, Oct. 8th, 1859. 

Messrs. Jordan Stokes and John TT. Richardson, members of the 

tdenate of Tennessee. 

Gentlemen: You desire my opinion in writing upon the follow¬ 
ing case, viz: “On the 9th of December, 1857, the General As¬ 
sembly formed a new county out of territory taken from Hamil¬ 
ton county, and called it Sequatchie, (see Acts of ’57, chap, il, 
page 7 ) On the 4th of March, ’58, (same session) the General 
Assembly, by Act of that date, detached a portion of Grundy 
county and attached this portion to the new county of Sequatchie, 
(see Acts of ’57-8, cha'p. 47, page 57,) By sectiiui 99 of the Code, 
Sequatchie county is embraced in the Eighth Senatorial and in 
the Third \Ongressional Districts. Under the apportionment 
law ot ’51-2, Hamilton county belongs to said Eighth and Third 
Districts, and Grundy county to the Fourteenth Senatorial and 
Fourth Congressional Districts, Li which of the Senatorial and 
Congrevssional Districts should the voters in the Grundy fraction 
of Sequatchie, have cast their votes at the last election?” 

By the 4th, 5th, and 6th sections of Article 2 of the Constitu¬ 
tion of Tennessee, (as it appears in the Code) an enumeration of 
the qualified voters and an apportionment of Representatives and 
Senators is to take place once in ten years, commencing with the 
year 1841. This apportionment is not subject to alteration du¬ 
ring this period. The last apportionment was made in 1851. 
In accordance with this, it is provided by the 5th section of the 
10th Article of the Constitution, “ that the citizens who may be 
included in any new county, shall vote with the county or coun¬ 
ties from which they may have been stricken off.” If then the 
county of Sequatchie had been formed by a single Act of the 
Legislature, of portions of Hamilton and Grundy counties, no 
question could have arisen in the case. It appears, however, by 
the case stated, that the county of Sequatchie was first formed 
out of territory detached from the county of Hamilton alone. By 
looking at this first act too, I find that it took efiect from its pas¬ 
sage, and 1 learn from other sources that the county thus formed, 
was organized before the passage of the second Act, adding a 



40 


portion of Grundy. Now it may be said that Sequatchie having 
become a county under the Constitution previously to the passage 
of the second Act, the addition of a portion of Grundy under this 
second Act, is nothing more than a change of county lines be¬ 
tween two existing or old counties, and that the voters thus cut 
off Wi-uld vote with the county to whirh they were newly attached. 
Such I have heard has been the practice where there has been an 
alteration of lines between two old counties. 1st. Can this pre.c- 
tice, as between two old counties be justified under the Constitu¬ 
tion ? It it can it seems to me that it would be only upon the 
ground that “ de minimis non curat lex^'* and by analogy to that 
princif-le of law by which conterminous owners of land may 
settle their boundaries without writing. The analogy to boundary 
cannot be sustained, as here the assumption is that there is a 
transfer, and that the boundary is already well known; and it 
would be, perhaps, a little dangerous to introduce the doctrine 
de minimis'' upon Constitutional questions. It may be said, 
however, that the Constitution does not prohibit the change 
of county lines, and that it makes no provision in case of such 
change as to voting, and that therefore it is competent for the 
Legi.>lature, acting as sovereign, both to change county lines, and 
to provide where the citizens in the changed territory shall vote. 
Is this principle (whatever may have been the practice) a sound 
one ? Does it not alter and derange the apportionment during the 
ten years ? Does it not give voters to one district and take them 
from another ? And if this be but a small matter, can we violate the 
Constitution in a small matter? If this were then a question 
merely of changing a line between two old counties, 1 should be 
of opinion that the voters should vote in the district to which 
they had been constitutionally apportioned. 

My opinion to this effect would be strengthened by the fact, 
that independently of the disturbance of the apportionment af¬ 
fecting general rights, the right of each individual citizen to vote 
in the district to w^hich he was allotted would be affected; a right 
which for ten years is guarantied to him under the Constitution. 

But this is not in my opinion a change of county lines as be¬ 
tween two old counties. Sequatchie, by the first Act of Assem¬ 
bly, and by its organization, was not made a county to all intents 
and purposes. As to voting for members of Assembly and Con¬ 
gress, it is to stand as a new county until there is another appor¬ 
tionment. The second Act of Assembly adding a portion of 
Grundy, is notan Act intended to increase the old county of H?m- 
ilton, and so merely to change the line between Grundy and 
Hamilton, but to change the line between the old county of 
Grundy and the new county of Sequatchie, which last has no in¬ 
dependent voting organization. While Sequatchie remains a new 
county, (that is till the next apportionment) it may have territory 


41 


added to it which it can govern, but not voters, as it is itself but a 
part of Hamilton for voting purposes. 

Again, substantially, though not in form, the two Acts of As- 
sembly, giving the county (»f Sequatchie its territory, passed at 
the same session, and evidently with the same interest, may be 
regarded as one, otherwise how unsafe would such legislation 
be. No one will pretend that a portion of Grundy’s territory or 
voting population would have been added to Hamilton county as 
such. But it is easy after making the county of Sequatchie, to 
add a portion of Grundy to it, at.d so, according to the argument, 
indirectly transfer a portion of its voting population to Hamil¬ 
ton. Regard the two Acts, however, as one, and no one would 
contend that the fractions would not vote with their original 
counties. The section of the Code referred to has, 1 apprehend, 
nothing to do with the question. By reference to the apportion¬ 
ment bill of 1851-2, it will be seen that section 99 of the Code 
is a meie iteration of that, with the exception of the c(»unty of 
Sequatchie, which at the time*the Code was written, though not 
perhaps when finally passed, consisted only of the portion taken 
from Hamilton. Sequatchie was then only a portion of Hamil¬ 
ton. The Legislature that enacted the Code had no power to 
change the apportionment law of 1851, but it being a general 
law, they merely intended to incorporate it. It they have done 
more than that, their law is to that extent void. 

Finally the Act of ’57, chap. 11, sec. 2, by its terms settles this 
question, perhaps apart from its aspect under the Constitution. 
This section, though enacted before the law changing the line be¬ 
tween Grundy and Sequatchie, would yet embrace the territory 
taken from Grund}" in the absence of any provision to the con¬ 
trary, in the law making the last change. 

Upon the w’hole, I am of opinion that the vote of that portion 
of Sequatchie taken from Grundy, should not be counted in the 
Eighth Senatorial District. 

Yours with respect, 

EDWIN H. EWING. 


Franklin, Oct. 8, 1859. 

CoL. Jordan Stokes : Dear Sir: At your request I .have con¬ 
sidered, as much as my time has allowed me, what should be the 
true construction of the 5th section of Article X, of our State Con¬ 
stitution. 

Under Article II, seciion 4, an enumeration of the qualified 
voters, and aa apportionment of the Representatives in the Gen¬ 
eral Assembly, shall be made in the year 1841, and wdthin every 
subsequent term of ten years. 

Article II, section 8, provides that the General Assembly shall 



42 


meet on the first Monday in October, 1835, and for ever there¬ 
after on the first Monday in October, ensuing the election. 

It will be observed that there is no provision for an apportion¬ 
ment of Representatives, under the Constitution, previous to the 
year 1841—the then existing apportionment being leit in force, 
under Article XI, section 1, until the apportionment of 1841. 

Article X, section 4, authorizes the establishment of new coun¬ 
ties by the General Assembly, hot\i before and after i\ie apportion¬ 
ment of 1841. This power is perpetual, with the restrictions 
contained in the section now under consideration. It is therefore 
manifest that the term “ new counties,” in this section, refers to 
all counties cieated after the adoption of the Constitution. 

Under the old apportionment, adopted by the Constitution, and 
under all new apportionments, made pursuant to the Constitu¬ 
tion, it was obvious to the Convention, that, should an election 
occur for Representatives after the establishment of ^ncw county, 
and before an apportionment subsequent to its establishment, 
that, unless such contingency should be provided for, there would 
be difficulty in the elections, and the general equality, througiiout 
the IState, in reiiresentation secured by the constitutional appor¬ 
tionments, founded exclusively on a recent enumeration of the 
qualified voters, might be disturbed. 

To pn vent these and other consequences, perhaps, the Conven¬ 
tion adopted \iticle X, section 5. 'i'he (invention, to be sure, 
might have proviiied ior a new enumeration and apportionment 
upon the establishment of every new county, or a new apportion¬ 
ment without an enumeration, and thereby prevented confusion 
in elections, and secured equality in representation ; but this 
course would be attended with delay, expense, and perhaps fraud 
—certainly with agitation, and improper and too frequent 
changes. The Convention, however, to provide the proper remedy, 
adopted the section now under consideration, and, it is believed, 
wisely. The great object of this section was, to have no appor¬ 
tionment not based on an enumeration of the qualified voters, 
and to preserve, unencruached upon, partially or otherwise, the 
equality secured by the decennial apportionment, made on recent 
enumerations, Tlie section contains an express restriction on the 
legislative power on the subject, and is made exclusively with a 
view to the provisions made in the Constiiution, on the subject of 
apporiion nenls of Representatives, and applies to all new coun¬ 
ties established between apportionments. 

It has been said that, betw^een apportionments, a county may 
be established, and aftei wards, in the same location, between 
appoitioaments, a fraction may be added to ibis county, out of 
the repre-eniative district, and that this would not be embraced 
by the section ; in other words, such county would not be a new 
county, inthe sense of iheSthsection referred to, but would be like 
the case of a fraction from one old county thrown to another old 


43 


county, (that is, a county mentioned in previous apportionments,) 
by the Legislative change of a county line. 

I do not deny that it is in the power of the Legislature to make 
the little changes in the apportionment laws—such as are brought 
about in chan^ng old county lines—because there is no constitu¬ 
tional prohibition, and it is within the scope of legislative author¬ 
ity. 1 suppose that the reason that there is no prohibition of this 
in the Constitution was, that it was believed that the transfers of 
voters from district to district would be inconsiderable, and would 
not sensibly affect the equality of the apportionment laws. And 
^uch has been found to be the case. The lawiul exercise of this 
power gives no aid to the determination of the question under 
consideration. 

If I understand the case of Sequatchie county, the chief part 
of the territory now constituting the county was constituted a 
county December 9, 1857, and that after an organization, two 
civil districts of Grundy county were taken liorn that county and 
added to Sequatchie by the change of the county line. The ques¬ 
tion now is, whether Sequatchie, or any part or parts of it, is a 
new or old county, under Article X, section 5. I understand that 
it is contended that the county, as constituted in the first instance, 
is a new county, or a part of a new county-, and votes with the 
county from which it was taken, (Harnifion,) but that the Grundy 
fraction of Sequatchie is a part of an old county, (to-wit: the 
Tirzi) county of Sequatchie;) in other words, the Hamilton frac¬ 
tion, being a part of a new county, must vote with Hamilton ; 
but the'Grundy fraction, being not a part of Hamilton, but a part 
of the old county of Sequatchie, must vote with Hamilton also. 
The Grundy fraction, it is contended, cannot vote with Grundy, 
because Sequatchie is an old county, but must vote with Hamil¬ 
ton, because Sequatchie is a neio county and must vote with Ham¬ 
ilton. 

If Sequatchie were an old county, as to the Grundy fraction, 
it would not give Sequatchie the right to confer the right upon 
the Grundy fraction to vote with Hamilton, because Sequatchie is 
a new county, as to Hamilton, and as such, has a right to vole 
with Hamilton. I think the Grundy fraction is not disiranchised, 
because it is a part of a new county, and has the right to vote 
with Grundy county. It may be remarked that the Grundy frac¬ 
tion has no right to vote with Hamilton, because she is a part of 
Sequatchie, whether Sequatchie were an old or new county. The 
right of the Hamilton fraction to vote with Hamilton is not 
because it was a part of Sequatchie, but because, under the 
apportioniTient law, it w'as in the H’imilton district; the election 
is held precisely as if the county was not established. 'I'he Grun¬ 
dy fraction, being out of the Hamilton district, under the appro- 
tionment law% cannot vote in it, and can be placed in no different 
condition by being a part of Sequatchie. 


44 


The apportionment law mentions all counties existing at the 
time of its passage, and speaks of the counties as of the times 
when elections shall be severally held under the law, and, in ex¬ 
press terms, covers the changes made by the alteration of county 
lines—there being no prohibition. But new counties, established 
pending the time any apportionment law is in force, are not 
named, and would not be embraced by such laws, and would be 
disfranchised but for the 5th section of Article X of the Constitu¬ 
tion. Indeed, this section is a part of the constitutional system of 
county representation, apportionments, and elections, and is a 
necessary complement to the other provisions of the Constitution 
on these subjects. 

I take it that on no possible ground can the Grundy fraction of 
Sequatchie vote with Hamilton county, under the present appor¬ 
tionment laws, and that it had the right to vote with Grundy 
county. 

I have looked at the question upon the supposition that the 
Grundy fraction was added to Sequatchie after it was organized; 
but, looking to the Acts of 1857, ch. 142, p. 349, passed March 
17, 1858, and ch. 47, § 1, pp. 57-8, passed 4th March, 1858, and 
ch. 11, pp. 7 to 10, passed December 9, 1857, I should certainly 
think that the organization took place after the 17th March, 1858 
I, however, know nothing of the facts. 

I have no time to write this over, and but little time to look 
into the matter. I am, however, very well satisfied that the con¬ 
clusion I have come to is correct. 

. Respectfully, 

JNO. MARSHALL. 


APPENDIX. 


We, the undersigned, Sheriffs of the counties of Bradley, Hamil¬ 
ton, Bledsoe, Bhea, Sequatchie and Marion, in the State of Ten¬ 
nessee, do certify that on this, 8th day of August, 1859, at Harri¬ 
son, in said county of Hamilton, we met and compared the votes of 
said counties for Senator, in the General Assembly of said State, 
from the district composed of said counties. And for said office we 
find that John A. Minnis, of Hamilton county, received for said 
office three thousand three hundred and seventy-seven votes, to wit: 
in Bradley, one thousand and fifteen votes, in Hamilton, one thous¬ 
and and twenty-six, iri Bhea, one hundred and forty-six, in Bled¬ 
soe, three hundred and forty-five, in Marion, three hundred and 
ninety, and in Sequatchie, one hundred and fifty-five votes; and for 
said office William H. Tibbs, of Bradley, received for said office, 
in Bradley county, seven hundred and ninety-four, in Hamilton, 
eleven hundred and nine, in Bhea, three hundred and thirty-three, 
in Bledsoe, four hundred and eighty, in Marion, four hundred and 
sixty-nine, and in Sequatchie one hundred and seventy-four votes; 
from which it appears that said John A. Minnis received a majority 
of eighteen votes, and we certify that the same appears so from the 
various reports and statements as here brought and produced 
by the Sheriffs of said counties. Said election was held on the 4th 
day of August, 1859, and it appears from the return of the Sheriff 
of Sequatchie county, that in the Second District of said county, J. 
A. Minnis received fifteen votes, and in the Eighth District of said 
county, he received twenty votes, and that W. H. Tibbs received no 
votes in either of said districts. 

J. H. KUHN, Sheriff Bradley co. 

J. C. CONNEB, Sheriff of Hamilton. 

S. A. BOGEBS, Sheriff of Marion. 

M. A. SMITH, Sheriff of Bledsoe, 

By J. N. THOMAS, Dep. Sheriff. 

J. M. CALDWELL, Sheriff, 

By J.M. CUNNINGHAM, D. Sher. 

WM. BANKIN, Sheriff, 

By M. M. PHELPS, Dep. Sheriff. 



46 


STATE OE TENNESSEE, V 

JSighth Senatorial District of said State, j 

Know all men by these presents, and it is hereby certified by the 
underfeigned, the Sheriffs and Deputy Sheriffs of the several coun¬ 
ties composing said Senatorial District, that at an election opened 
and held on the 4th day of August, 1S59, in compliance with law, 
for an election for Senator to represent said district in the ensuing 
General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, John A. Minnis re 
ceived in Hamilton county 1,026 votes ; in Bradley 1,015; in Bhea 
446; in Bledsoe 345 ; in Marion 390; and in Sequatchie county, 
including the 2d and 8th districts of said county, which are frac¬ 
tions taken from Grundy county, he received 155 votes, but deduct¬ 
ing the votes in the 2d- and 8th districts, he received 120 votes in 
said county of Sequatchie, making in all including these two dis¬ 
tricts taken from Grundy, 3,877 votes. And it is further certified 
that W. H. Tibbs received in Hamilton county, 1,109 votes; in 
Bradley, 794; Bhea, 833; Bledsoe, 480 ; and in Sequatchie 174; and 
Marion, 469, making in all 3,359 votes ; and that said Tibbs received 
no votes in the 2d and 8th districts of Sequatchie county. We cer¬ 
tify that W. H. Tibbs received a majority of 17 votes excluding the 
2d and 8th districts of Sequatchie, and that John A. Minnis re¬ 
ceived a majority of 18 votes, including those two districts. Given 
under our hands this 20th day of August, 1859. 

J. C. CONNER, 

Sheriff of Hamilton county. 

I do believe the above statement to be correct, this 27th day of 
August, 1859. S. A. ROGERS, 

Sheriff of Marion county. 

I believe the foregoing statement of the Sheriff of Hamilton county 
to be correct; but I have no personal knowledge of the alleged facts 
of the 2d and 8th civil districts of Sequatchie county, having been 
taken from territory originally comprising part of Grundy coun¬ 
ty. Given under my hand this 22d day of August, 1859. 

J. H. KUHN, 

Sheriff of Bradley county. 

I believe the foregoing statement is true to the best of my knowl¬ 
edge. This September 17th, 1859. M. M. PHELPS, 

Deputy Sheriff of Sequatchie county. 

I certify that the foregoing facts are true as stated, except the 
statements that the 2d and 8th districts of Sequatchie county were 
fractions taken from Grundy county. I do not know whether the 
fact excepted is true or not. This September 18th, 1859. 

J. N. THOMAS, 

Deputy Sheriff of Bledsoe county. 


47 


I certify that the foregoing facts are true as stated, except the 
statement that the 2d and 8th districts of Sequatchie county were 
fractions taken from Grundy county. I do not know whether that 
fact is so or not. This 19th of September, i859. 

J. M. CUNNINGHAM, 

Deputy Sheriff of Rhea county. 


t 


STATE OF TENNESSEE. 

Deposition of James C. Conner, taken on this 23d da}^ of Sep*» 
tember, 1859, at the law office of John A. Minnis, Esq,, in the city 
of Chattanooga, Tennessee, to be read as evidence in the matter 
of the contested election, between said Minnis and VVm. H. Tibbs, 
for a seat in the Senate of the Tennessee Legislature, from the 
Eighth Senatorial District, at the ensuing session of the General 
Assembly. 

The said Conner deposeth and saith as follows : 

Question 1. By counsel for Tibbs.—Please state what office you 
hold, and whether you held the same previous to, and on the 4th 
day of August last. 

Answer'. —I held the office of Sheriff of Hamilton county on the 
4th day of August, 1859, and p.»’evious to that time. 

Question 2. by same.—State whether, as such Sheriff, you held 
the election in said county for Governor, members of Congress 
and members of the Legislature, on said 4th day of August? 

Answer. —I did by myself and special deputies. 

Question 3, by same.—Whom did you appoint, or authorize to 
hold said election in the fraction of Sequatchie county taken from 
Hamilton county ? 

Answer. —I seen Mr. Rankin in Chattanooga on the 28th June, 
1859 ; he came to me about the electiun in Sequatchie, and we 
had a conversation ; and he said to me, that he thought he had a 
right to hold the election, as Sheriff of said county. I told him I 
did not know how that was, but if I had any thing to do with 
holding said election, that I appointed him to hold the election, 
.and for him to get other suitable men in the different districts, as 
I was not acquainted in Sequatchie as well as he was. This is 
as near the conversation as I now recollect. 

Question 4, by same.—S'ate what word you afterwards sent 
to Mr. Rankin, and by whom ? And state whether you allude to 
Wm. Rankin, Sheriff of Sequatchie county ? 



48 


Answer. —I sent word to Mr. Rankin by W. H. Stringer, to go 
on and hold the eleciion, as it was not necessary tor me to come 
over, and to make liis returns to me from all the dilferent districts 
of said Sequatchie county. I alluded to Wm. Rankin, SherilF of 
said cout»ty. 

Quesiion 5, by same.—State whether Mr. Rankin ever notified 
you that he would not hold said eleciion ? 

Answer. —He never did.- 

Que.^tion 6, by same.— Do I understand you to say, that you 
authorized him to hold said election, and where he could not 
attend in person, to appoint other persons for you ? 

Answer. —As before stated, 1 seen Mr. Rankin in Chattanooga, 
and told him that I wanted to do just what was right and accord¬ 
ing to law, and if it was my duty to hold said election, that i ap¬ 
pointed him as my special deputy, and for him to select other 
competent men in the different districts, as 1 had always done in 
my own county with my own regula*; deputies. 

Question 7, by same.— What were you intentions in reference 
to the Grundy fraction—I mean that portion of the territory of 
Sequatchie which had been taken from Grundy ? Did you instruct 
Rankin to send the returns from that fraction? 

Answer. —xMy intentions wmi'e for Mr. Rankin to send me the 
number of votes polled in each district, as tliere had been some 
talk in regard to Uie legality of the voters fiving in the territory 
originally belonging to Grundy county. 

Question 8.—Did you mean that Rankin should onl}" return to 
you the number of votes polled in those districts over which you 
had control, if you had any control at all, or did you instruct him 
to send you the returns of the whole county ? 

Answer. —I supposed that he would only send the votes 
polled in the old counties of Marion and Bledsoe. My informa¬ 
tion was, that Col. S. A. Smith and Col. R. B. Brabson had in¬ 
structed Mr. Rankin in regard to the voters of that county. My 
intentions were, that if he should send all the votes of the whole 
county, that it could be knowm what votes were polled in that 
portion taken from Grundy, if ever any difficulty should arise. 

Question 9.—If any of the lawyers gave it to you as their 
opinion, that the votes of Sequatchie county in the Grumfy frac¬ 
tion should not be counted or received with the votes of Hamilton 
county, or the Eighth Senatorial District, please state who they 
were, and whether it was before the election on the 4th August. 

Answer, —The first time that ever the matter of the portion of 
Grundy county was spoken of to me. was by Dr. J. W. Gillespie, 
and I went the same day to D. M. Key, Esq , for council, as my 
attorney, and he told me that those living in the territory originally 
belonging to Grundy had no right to vote with this county. D. 
C. Trevvhitt told me about the same. Levi Trewhitt told ine that 
I had nothing to do with Sequatchie at all. In a conversation 


49 


with J. A. Minnis, Esq , on the road from Harrison to Dallas, he 
told me that I had nothing to do with that portion of Sequatchie 
taken from Grundy county, and laughingly remarked, that he would 
not need their votes. This all happened before the election. 

Question lO.—Did you understand from Col. Minnis, that those 
voting in the Grundy fraction were not to be received and counted 
in Hamilton county? 

Answer .— That was my understanding, as we had just been 
talking about that question. 

CROSS-EXAMINED BY J. A. MINNIS. 

Question 1.— You speak of a. conversation you had with me ; 
was this in the nature of advice, or was it a casual or accidental 
conversation ? 

Answer. — I did not consider it in the nature of advice. 

Question 2. — You say I laughingly remarked, I would not need 
their votes, meaning the Grundy fraction ; was not this the remark, 
that, so far as I was concerned, the Sheriffs might hold the election 
as they pleased: and then laughingly remarked, so far as jthe 
Grundy fraction was concerned, I did think I would need the 
vote ? 

Aiiswcr.—l think Col. Minnis used some such language, as the 
Sheriffs might hold the elections as they pleased, as far as he was 
concerned. 

Question 3,—Was there in that conversation any thing specially 
said relative to the Senatorial election ? 

Answer .— If the Senatorial election was named, I do not recol¬ 
lect it. 

.Question 4.—On the occasions you speak of advising with Key, 
was it not in relation to your duties as Sheriff of Hamilton 
county? Was there ever any advice asked or given as to the 
right of Sequatchie county to vote as an independent county ? 

Answer .— In the advice from Key, I wanted to know what was 
my duty as sheriff. There was nothing said in particular about 
Sequatchie voting as an independent county, to my recollection. 

Question 5.—When you sent word by Stringer to Rankin, did 
you not say to Stringer, to say to Rankin to hold the election as 
he thought right, or as he pleased, or words to that effect? 

Answer .— I have no recollection of any such conversation with 
Stringer; there might have been such conversation between me 
and Stringer, but I have no recollection of sending any such word 
to Rankin. 

Question 6.—When we met at Harrison to compare the vote, 
was there ever but one return made of the Sequatchie county 
vote? Was that made as the vote of Sequatchie county? Was 
it certified to by William Rankin, as Sheriff of Sequatchie coun ? 

Answer.- -There was but one return, and that was certified oy 
Wm. Rankin, as Sheriff of Sequatchie county. 

4 


50 


Question 7.—Was there ever any regular comparing of the Sen¬ 
atorial vote, until this official vote was received? 

Answei'. —There was not. 

Question 8.—When the official vote of Sequatchie was received, 
were the inspectors called or re-called together by me or any other 
person, or did they meet of their own accord to compare the vote, 
and where did they meet? 

Answer. —I was at the Court house door when they came from 
Sequatchie, and we all met in the County Clerk’s office and com¬ 
pared the votes. 

Question 9.—Was I present when you compared the vote, and 
was this alter Col. Tibbs had left? 

Answer. —If you was present I did not see you. Col. Tibbs had 
left. 

Question 10 —Is not Levi Trewhitt one of the oldest, and con¬ 
sidered one of the best lawyers in this part of the State ? 

Answer. —I consider Levi Trewhitt a good lawyer. 

RE-EXAMINATION. 

• (Question 1 —What is your opinion of D. C. Trewhitt and D. M. 
Key as law 3 ^ers ? 

• Answer. —I consider them both very distinguished and good 
lawyers. 

Question 2.—If you have ever given a certificate upon the sub¬ 
ject of this election in Sequatchie, and the question as to the 
Grundy fraction, please exhibit the same, mark it and make it part 
of this deposition. 

Answer. —I have marked exhibit A as a part of this, my 
deposition. 

Question 1. By J. A. Minnis.—By whom was this exhibit A 
drawn. 

Answer. —By Thomas J. Campbell, Esq , I think. 

Question 2.—Who was present ? 

Answer. —I do not now recollect. I think Col. Brabson was 
there asleep o‘n the bed. I think Col. Tibbs was or had been 
there, and perhaps some others. 

Question 3—Had you before that, or at the time, a conversa¬ 
tion with said persons^ and had you explained to them when and 
how you had deputized Rankin, and had you given the conversa¬ 
tion you had with me, as proven by you in this deposition ? 

Answer. —I had a conversation with them at that time, and had 
told them when and how I had appointed Rankin, and also your 
conversation. 

Further this deponent saith not. J. C. CONNER. 

The foregoing was taken before me at Col. J. A. Minnis’ office, 
in Chattanooga, Tennessee, by consent, and was subscribed and 
sworn to, 23d September, 1859. 


R. HENDERSON. 


51 


EXHIBIT A. ^ 

STATE OF TENNESSEE. ) 

Hamilton County. J 

I, the undersigned, Sheriff of Hamilton county, Tennessee, do- 
hereby certify that a few days before the election on the 4th inst., 
for Governor, members of Congress, and members of the Legis¬ 
lature of the State of Tennessee, that I appointed Wm. Rankin, 
Esq., of that fraction of Sequatchie county taken fr&m Hamilton, 
my special deputy to open and hold said election in said fraction 
of Sequatchie taken from Hamilton county. And I do further 
certify, that before acting in this matter, I took the advice of able 
counsel upon the subject, and amongst others, that of D. C, 
Trewhitt, D. M. Key. and John A. Minnis, Esqrs., all of whom 
concurred that the fraction of said county of Sequatchie, taken 
from said county of Hamilton, should vote and be counted with 
Hamilton county, and that the fraction taken from Grundy coun¬ 
ty, should be excluded from voting .with said county of Hamilton, 
or in the 3d Congressional or 8th Senatorial districts of the State 
of Tennessee. 

And I do further certify that I authorized said Rankin to ap¬ 
point special deputies for me in those districts of Sequatchie county, 
taken from Hamilton/which could not be held by said Rankin in 
person. J. C. CONNER, 

August 20, 1859. Sheriff of Hamilton county. 


EXHIBIT B. 

Harrison, July 25, 1859. 

Dear Sir :—We have heard that there is some conflict of opin¬ 
ion upon the question as to where those persons may legally vote 
who reside within the territory composing the county of Se¬ 
quatchie, and we have thought best to write you cur opinions and 
wishes upon the subject. 

In the first place, in regard to the several civil districts which 
were taken from Marion and Bledsoe counties and attached to 
Hamilton, we think they should vote with the counties from which 
they were taken—that is, the 10th civil district of Bledsoe county 
should vote with Bledsoe, and the first and second districts of 
Marion should vote with Marion county. 

And also that portion of Grundy county which was taken from 
Grundy to form Sequatchie should vote with Grundy county. 



52 


And also with regard to Cumberland county, we think only 
that portion taken trom Bledsoe to form Cumberland should vote 
with Bledsoe, until the next apportionment by the General As¬ 
sembly. 

In order to avoid confusion, we hope that the election will be 
held in this way. S. A. {SMITH. 


My opinion is, that the districts composing the county of Se¬ 
quatchie should vote with the counties from wdiich they were ta¬ 
ken, when the county was created. R. B. BRABSON. 


STATE OF TENNESSEE. ) 

Eighth Senatorial District of said State, j 

Know^ all men by these presents, and it is hereby certified by 
the undersigned, by the sheriffs and deputy sheriffs of the several 
counties composing said senatorial district, that at an election 
opened and held on the 4th day of August, 1859, in compliance 
with law, for an election for Senator to represent said district in 
the ensuing General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, John 
A. Minnis received, in Hamilton county, 1,026 votes; in Bradley, 
1015; Rhea, 446 ; Bledsoe, 345 ; and Marion, 390; and in Se¬ 
quatchie county, including the 2d and 8th districts of said county, 
which are fractions taken from Grundy county, he received 155 
votes; but deducting the votes in the second and eighth dis¬ 
tricts, he received 120 votes in said county of Sequatchie ; making 
in all, including those two districts taken from Grundy, 3,377 votes, 
and exclusive of those two districts, 3,342 votes. And it is fur¬ 
ther certified, that W. H. Tibbs received in Hamilton county 
1,109 votes ; in Bradley, 794 ; Rhea, 333; Bledsoe, 480, and Se¬ 
quatchie, 174, and Marion, 469 votes, making in all 3,359 votes; 
and that the said Tibbs received no votes in the 2d and 8th dis¬ 
tricts of Sequatchie county. We certify that W. H. Tibbs receiv¬ 
ed a majority of 17 votes excluding the 2d and 8th districts of Se¬ 
quatchie, and that John A. Minnis received a majority of 18 votes 
including those two districts. Given under our hands this 20th 
day of August, 1859. J. C. CONNER, 

Sheriff of Hamilton county. 

I do believe the above statement to be correct. This 27th day 
of August, 1859. S. A. ROGERS, 

Sheriff of Marion County. 




53 


I believe the foregoing statement of the Sheriff of Hamilton 
county to be correct, but 1 have no personal knowledge of the al¬ 
leged fact of the Sd and 8th districts of Sequatchie county having 
been taken from territory originally composing part ot Grundy 
county. Given under my hand this 22d August, 1859. 

J. H. KUHN, 
Sheriff of Bradley county. 

I believe the foregoing statement is true to the best o( my 
knowledge. This September 17th, 1859. 

M. M. PHELPS, 

Deputy Sheriff of Sequatchie county. 

I certify that the foregoing facts are true as stated, except the 
statement that the 2d and 8th districts of Sequatchie county were 
fractions taken from Grundy county. I do not know whether the 
fact excepted is true or not. This Septembei' 18th, 1859. 

J. N. THOIVIAS, 

Deputy Sheriff of Bledsoe county. 

I certify that the foregoing facts are true as stated, except the 
statement that the 2d and 8th districts ol Sequatchie county were 
fractions taken from Grundy c >unty. I do not know whether that 
fact is so or not. This 19th September, 1859. 

J. M. CUNNINGHAM, 
Deputy Sheriff of Rhea county. 


COUNTY COURT, JANUARY TERM, 1858. 

The County Court of Sequatchie met at the new meeting-house, 
near William Rankin’s, to organize and transact such other busi¬ 
ness as may come before it, according to an act passed by the Le¬ 
gislature of Tenneseee, on the 9th day of December, 1857. 

The Commissioners appointed by the Court to district the coun¬ 
ty, &c., returned and made the following report: 

The eighth district shall be composed of all the territory of Se¬ 
quatchie county lying on the top of Cumberland mountain, and 
shall hold their elections at the meeting house known by the name 
of Mt. Pleasant. 


Dunlap, Tenn., Monday, April 5th, 1858. 

The County Court of Sequatchie county, and State of Tennes¬ 
see, met on this, the 5th day of April, 1858, pursuant to adjourn¬ 
ment. Justices present, G. W. Cain, F. Deakins, Aaron Smith, 
and Byram Heard. 



Ordered by the Court, that the ninth civil district be formed in 
the county of Sequatchie, beginning at the top of Cumberland 
mountain, and running up Little Brush creek to the New Market 
road, from D. Hillis’ to the hill road, thence to the James Eagle 
place, including Jas. B. Smith in said district; then with the Grun¬ 
dy county line southwardly to near the Brewer place ; and the 
place of holding elections to be at A. J. Sales’. 

Ordered by the Court, that the place of holding elections in the 
eighth civil district be changed from Mount Pleasant to the Wood- 
ley place. 

Monday, July 4th, 1859. 

It is ordered by the Court, that the ninth civil district of Se¬ 
quatchie county be changed, and known hereafter as the second 
district. 

STATE OF TENNESSEE, 1 
Seouatchie County. J 

I, S. C. Stone, Clerk of the County Court of Sequatchie county, 
do certify, that the foregoing is a true and perfect transcript of the 
record in relation to the eighth and ninth, or second districts, as 
appears of record in my office. Also, that the justices who held 
the April term of the Court, 1858, were justices who were elected 
as such in Marion and Bledsoe before those districts were attach¬ 
ed to Hamilton county, and that they were all the justices in this 
county except one; at that time there having been no election fo;’ 
county officers. This IGth Atigust, 1859. 

S. C. STONE, Clerk. 


The testimony of Daniel C. Trewhitt, taken in the contested 
election between John A. Minnis and William H. Tibbs, on the 
11th October, 1859: 

Question —Mr. Trewhitt will state whether he was well ac¬ 
quainted with that portion of territory taken from Hamilton coun¬ 
ty to form the county of Sequatchie, and whether it contained 
350 square miles? 

Answer —I had and have a general knowledge of the territory 
included in the limits of the tenth district of Bledsoe and first and 
second districts of Marion county, which were detached from those 
counties and attached to Hamilton, and afterwards the county of 
Sequatchie created out of it; but not sufficiently so to state the 
number of square miles included, of my own knowledge. 1 know 
that when I drew a bill for B. F. Bridgeman vs. the Commission¬ 
ers of said new county, calculation was made of the number of 



55 


square miles by said Bridgeman and Thomas R. Frazier, now of 
counsel in the cause for the Commissioners, who professed to have 
pretty correct knowledge of the distance of each line, and the re¬ 
sult was much short of 350 square miles—I think less than 300. 

Question —State the form of this territory taken from Hamilton, 
and the length of the lines enclosing it, as near as you can. 

Answer —d'he lines, 1 think, are nearly straight, north and south. 
The lines north and south, are about 12 miles in length, perhaps 
a little over or under; the lines east and west, are about 15 miles 
in length, perhaps near 20 ; the east and west lines on the south 
boundary of the county, I do not know much about. 

-• Question —Has there been any election in the county of Se¬ 
quatchie by the people, for county officers, and if so, when was 
the election held, and by whom ? 

Answer —If there ever has been, I never heard of it. There was 
once an election for county officers advertised ; the bill filed by 
Bridgeman enjoined that election ; since then I have heard of no 
election in that county by the people. 

Question —When was the injunction obtained, and has it been 
dissolved ? 

Answer —Tlie injunction was obtained in February, 1858,1 think. 
At the March term of the Pikeville Chancery Court, the bill was 
dismissed, and an appeal by the complainant to the Supreme 
Court ; after that, the injunction was, to some extent, modified— 
in what particular I do not now remember; it was done after 1 
left the Court, The decree of the Chancellor was reversed by the 
vSuprerrieCourt. Since then no dissolution has been ordered of 
the injunction, unless done at last term, which I am informed was 
not done. 

Question —Do you reside in Hamilton county, and are you the 
representative of that county, and did the citizens residing in the 
Grundy fraction of Sequatchie vote betw'een you and William H. 
Stringer, candidates to represent the county of Hamilton? 

Answer —I reside in Hamilton county. I am the representative 
from Hamilton county. My information from the deputy sheriff of 
Sequatchie county, on Monday after the election, at Harrison, was 
that the citizens residing in the Grundy fraction did not vote in 
the representative election, but that those residing in the Hamil¬ 
ton part of Sequatchie county did vote. 

Cross-examined by J. A. Minnis : 

Are you acquainted with the territory of Marion county ? Did 
not the Act of 1856, attaching the first and second civil districts of 
Marion to Hamilton county, reduce Marion below her constitution¬ 
al limits, and also below her constitutional number of voters? 

I have some acquaintance with the territory of Marion. My 
understanding is and has been, and I think generally conceded, 
that the Act referred to did reduce Marion county below her con¬ 
stitutional number of qualified voteris. 


56 


Question —Did not the same Act attaching the tenth civil dis¬ 
trict of Bledsoe to Hamilton, reduce Bledsoe county below her 
constitutional limits and constitutional number of voters? 

Answer —I do not think Bledsoe had as many as 1,000 qualified 
voters at the time ; the number taken off I think was between 70 
and 100. 

Question —Has not Sequatchie county had regular Circuit Courts 
ever since her organization ? 

Answer —1 think she has. 

Question —You speak of a bill having been filed, an injunction 
granted and modified ; was not the injunction modified by the 
Chancellor, permitting Sequatchie to go on and do business as a 
county? After this bill came back from the Supreme Court, and 
prior to the election in August last, was notan amended bill filed, 
alleging the unconstitutionality of said Act of 1855-6, attaching 
this territory to Hamilton, and upon this bill was not an injunc¬ 
tion issued and served on the Chairman of the County Court of 
Hamilton, enjoining Hamilton from exercisingjurisdiction oftiiis ter¬ 
ritory, and w^as not this injunction served prior to the last election? 

Answer —As I stated before, in what respects the injunction was 
modified I do not remember. An amended bill was filed during 
the term you state, against Hamilton county ; the charge in the 
amended bill, that the Act of 1856 was unconstitutional, was not 
unoriginal charge, but a mere recitation, if I remember correctly. 
I know the charge was in the original bill. Under the amended 
bill 1 think an injunction was issued and served on the Chairman 
of the County Court of Hamilton county, and enjoining them, as 
I believe, in the manner suggested in your question. This was 
done prior to the last August election. 

, Question —How many voters were there in the two districts 
taken from Marion and added to Hamilton ? 

Answer —I think some over 200. 

D. C. TREWHITT. 


STATE OF TENNESSEE. 

Deposition of R. P. Lloyd, taken before John M. Bridgeman, 
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Bledsoe county, in said State, to be 
read as evidence in the matter of the contested election between 
John A. Minnis and Wm. H. Tibbs, for a seat in the Senate at 
the ensuing session of the General assembly of said State. 

'J he said Lloyd aged about 33 years, being duly sworn, deposed 
as follows: 

Question 1, by Counsel for Tibbs—Please state if you were in 
the Tennessee Legislature at the session of 1857-8, and if so, 
what counties did you represent? 



57 

Answer.—I was, and represented the counties of Rhea, Bledsoe 
and Hamilton. 

Q.—It you were familiar with the circumstances attending the 
creation of Sequatchie county, that do not appear upon the record, 
please detail tho^e circumstances to the best of your recollection. 

I mean in regard to that fraction of said county taken from the 
county of Grundy ? 

A.—There was a petition sent up to the Legislature of 1857-8, 
accompanied with a plot of the territory that Sequatchie county 
is formed of, and a portion of the territory was taken from the 
county of Grundy. 

Q.—Please state if it was not always intended by those hav¬ 
ing charge of the Bill that the territory taken from Grundy 
should be included in the new county, and was it not at the sug¬ 
gestion of the member from Grundy that it was postponed until 
the last of the session, before the Grundy fraction was attached? 

A.—It was intended w hen the original bill was introduced that 
the fraction from Grundy should be included in the new county, 
but at the suggestion of Mr. Roberts, the member from Grundy, 
it was left out, as it approached Eearer than twelve miles to the 
county seat of Grundy, as Mr. Roberts understood. Mr. Roberts 
went home to consult his constituency on the subject, and after 
the return of Mr. Roberts, a petition from the citizens of that 
portion of Grundy was received in the Legislature, and upon 
that petition the fraction of Grundy was added to the county of 
Sequatchie. 

Q—State whether the territory which was included in the origi¬ 
nal Bill taken from Grundy county, was very nearly the same 
territory that was afterwards added, and if there was any varia¬ 
tion, was it a material one ? 

A.—1 cannot state precisely, but I think the change was not 
very great. 

Q.—Are you acquainted with the Grundy fraction, if so, please 
state to the best of your knowledge, the extent of said terri¬ 
tory ? 

A.—I am not personally acquainted with said fraction, but I 
heard Mr. Roberts frequently speak of the territory included in 
the fraction and he said it took a large amount of territory from 
his county. 

Q.—If you are acquainted with the territory embraced in the 
entire county of Sequatchie, please state from your knowledge of 
the same, whether or not said county contains three hundred and 
fifty square miles without the fraction from Grundy ? 

A.—I am acquainted with the territory that was attached to 
the county of Hamilton, and should say there is not three hun¬ 
dred and fifty square miles. 

Q—Ho I understand you to mean the 1st and 2d districts of 
Marion and the lOlh district of Bledsoe, which was attached to 


58 


Hamilton by the act of 1855-6, and if so, do those districts con¬ 
tain four hundred and fifty qualified voters? 

A,—I do mean those districts, and from the best information I 
have I do not think said districts contain said number of voters. 

Q.—Was not, therefore, the territory from Grundy afterwards 
attached to Sequatchie, for the purpose of giving her a sufficient 
amount of Territory and a constitutional number of voters? 

A. The friends of said county were afraid that the county fell 
short of its constitutional requirements and wished that part of 
Grundy attached, and that with the petition of the citizens of the 
fraction of Grundy was the cause of it being attached. 

Q.—Please state what facilities you have had for becoming 
acquainted with the territory in question ? 

A.—One portion of said territory comprises a part of the dis¬ 
trict that I represented during the Legislature or session of 1857- 
8, and the fraction that is taken from Marion lies adjoining Bled¬ 
soe county in sach a manner as becomes necessary to pass through 
it in all traveling, that is down the valley, and is only sixteen 
miles from my house, and I have traveled a great deal over this 
said fraction, both up and down, and across ; having connexion in 
that territory; I have spent a considerable portion of my time 
there. 

Q.—Who was the draughtsman of the original Bill for the 
formation of Sequatchie county, and which included the territory 
from Grundy county? 

A.—I cannot state positively, but my opinion is that Mr. Speak¬ 
er Burch, of the Senate, drafted said Bill. 

Cross-examined by J. A. Minnis.—Were you well acquainted 
with the territory when this county of Sequatchie was created ? 

A.—I have been acquainted with the territory for several years. 

Q.—Did you vote for the Act of the 9th December, 1857, cre¬ 
ating the new county. 

A.—I did. 

Q.—Had you not taken an oath to support the Constitution ? 

A.—I had. 

Q.—Can you state what was the object in the Legislature of 
1855-6, in taking one district from Bledsoe, and two from Marion 
and adding to Hamilton 1 

A.—I cannot, positively, but it is my opinion that it was to 
dodge a constitutional quibble in regard to Marion and Bledsoe 
counties in the formation of a new county. 

Re-examination.—Was not the Grundy portion afterwards 
added to comply with that constitutional provision ? 

A.—As I have before stated, it was feared by the friends of the 
county, they being threatened with a suit to disorganize said 
county, and in that event they would not have the constitutional 
requirements, and therefore with the petition and the requirement 
of the Constitution, it was attached. 


59 

Q.—Were they not threatened with a suit after the passage ot 
the act in December, 1857? 

A.—When I came home during the Christmas hollidays I heard 
the suit talked of that has since been brought, t 

R. P. LLOYD. 

We agree that the above deposition may be read as evidence 
in the matter in controversy—waiving all forms, and the necessity 
of being sworn to—reserving alone the question ol the competing 
of the testimony. 

JOHN A. MINNIS, 

W. H. TIBBS. 

By Att’y. T. J. CAMPBELL. 


STATE OF TENNESSEE. 

^ Be it remembered that on this 16th day of September, 1859, I 
have caused to come before me at the house of Wm. Rankin, Esq., 
in the town of Dunlap, and County of Sequatchie, State aforesaid, 
at the request of Col. Wm. H. Tibbs, and Col. Jno. A. Minnis—the 
witnesses whose names are mentioned below, and have taken their 
depositions to be read as evidence in the matter of the contested 
election between said Tibbs and Minnis for a seat in the Senate of 
Tennessee, at the ensuing session of the General Assembly, to com¬ 
mence in the City of Nashville, on the 1st Monday in October next, 
viz : 

William Rankin aged-years, being duly sworn, deposed as 

follows: 

Question 1.—By counsel for said Tibbs. Please state, Mr. Ran¬ 
kin, whether you held the election in Sequatchie County on the 4th 
of August, 1859, for Governor, members of Congress, and members 
of the General Assembly ? 

Answer.—I did hold the Election as above stated, by my Deputy, 
as Sheriff of Sequatchie County. 

Ques. 2.— By same.—Please examine the copy of the scrolls, 
which I hand you, certified by Spencer C. Stone, Clerk of the 
county aforesaid, and state whether you believe the same to be a 
correct copy of the scrolls of said election ? 

Answer.—I believe they are a true copy; they are marked exibit 
A, and may be taken as part of my deposition. 

Ques. 3. —By same.—How long have you been living in Se. 



60 


quatchie, or in the territory which now forms said county—and 
how long have you been Sheriff of said county ? 

Answer.—I have been living here in the Territory which compose 
the county of Sequatchie about twenty-five years, and I have been 
Sheriff of said county ever since the organization of said county, 
which was on the first Monday of January 1858. 

Qctes. 4.—By same.—Are you acquainted with the Territory 
which was taken from Grundy county, to form the county of Se¬ 
quatchie ; or the Territory afterwards added to Sequatchie ? 

Answer.—There was not any Territory taken from the county 
of Grundy, to form the county of Sequatchie. I am very well ac¬ 
quainted with that Territory of Grundy which was attached to Se¬ 
quatchie county, I believe on the 4th of March, 1858. 

Ques. 5.—By same.—About how mucli Territory was taken from 
said county of Grundy, and attached to Sequatchie ? 

Answer.—I am not able to say how much Territory there was 
attached to Sequatchie; I would suppose that from the beginning 
corner to the old Hamilton corner, formerly Marion, is about eight 
miles, the width is about two miles wide on an average. 

Ques. 6.—By same.—How wide is said Territory at its widest 
point, and also at the most narrow point ? 

Answer.—There is one point where it is about five or six miles 
wide, and the narrowest point I now recollect of, it is not more 
than half mile wide. 

Ques. 7.—By same.—At the election on the 4th of August alluded 
to above—in which fraction of Sequatchie, the Grundy or Hamilton 
fraction—did the persons who voted in the second and eighth civil 
districts cast their votes ? * 

Answer.—Both the places of voting in the 2d and 8th civil dis¬ 
tricts are in that portion of Sequatchie county which was attached 
from Grundy county to Sequatchie, as before mentioned, I Suppose 
the voters voted at those places. 

Ques. 8.—By same.—What are the names of the voting places 
in the 2d and 8th civil districts—and did you appoint deputies to 
hold the election in said districts ? 

Answer.—The voting place in the 2d district is A. J. Tates, the 
voting place in the 8th district is the Woodley place, where Mr. Bird 
Clark resides, who I appointed my special Deputy, to hold the elec¬ 
tion at said place; in the 2d district, Mr. John C. Ricket was my 
special Deputy to hold the election. 

Cioss examined by J. A. Minnis.—You say Sequatchie county 
was organized the 1st Monday in January, 1858; has there been 
regular County and Circuit Courts held in Sequatchie county ever 
since, and has Sequatchie county ever since been performing all the 
acts of a regular organized county ? 

Answer.—The county of Sequatchie has held all the County and 
Circuit Courts ever since its organization, except the March Term 
of the County Court 1858, at that time we were enjoined by Bridg¬ 
man’s bill. 


61 


Who appointed the Judges to hold the election at the various 
precints, in Sequatchie county, that was held on 4th of August last, 
including the 2d and 8th districts? 

Answer.—The County Court of Sequatchie county. 

Was there to your knowledge ever any officer, either. Sheriff or 
Deputy, from Hamilton, Marion, Bledsoe, or Grundy, ever in this 
county, to hold said election in Sequatchie, or for any portion of it? 

Answer.—There never was any officer as above stated, to my 
knowdedge, from either of the counties. 

Did you ever have any conversation with J. C. Conner, Sheriff 
of Hamilton county,.in relation to holding this election, if so, state 
when it was, and as near as you can recollect what was said ? 

Answer.—On the day the candidates for Govenor spoke at Chat¬ 
tanooga, I believe it was on the 28th June, 1859, I spoke to J. C. 
Conner about the election; as well as I now recollect Mr, Conner 
said he did not know he had anything to ^do with holding the elec¬ 
tion in Sequatchie county. I then told him I had advertized the elec¬ 
tion as Sheriff of Sequatchie county, that I believed I had the right 
to hold the election according to the Code. Mr. Conner remarked, 
if I have anything to do with it, you can manage it, or that he would 
see about it, or something to that amount. I never saw Mr. Conner 
anymore. I was informed Mr. Conner would, be at our County 
Court 1st Monday in Aligust, to see me about the election, he did not 
come. Mr. W. H. Stinger told me on that day, 1st Monday of 
August, that Mr. Conner told him to tell me he could not come 
over, for me to go on and hold the election as I pleased or as I saw 
proper, I think the words was to that amount. 

Did you ever receive any deputation from Mr. Conner or any 
other person to hold said election ? 

Answer.—I never received any deputation from Mr. Conner to 
hold the election on 4th August 1859, nor from any other person. 

Did you, as Sheriff of Sequatchie county, make a statement of the 
vote of Sequatchie county by districts, certify the same as Sheriff 
of Sequatchie county, and send the same to Harrison, where the 
Sheriffs met to compare the vote for Senator, was that statement 
made correctly from the scrolls—by whom did you send it ? 

Ans'wer.—made out my return according to the returns that 
were made to me, which I certified to be correct, and sent my return 
up to Harrison by Mr. M. M. Phelps my deputy. Said certificate 
'was correctly made out from the scrolls. 

Did I ever give you any advice, directions, or make any request 
to you in relation to holding this election, as to how you should 
hold it, where you should hold it, or who should or should not vote, 
or as to any thing else in relation to the election ? 

Answer.—You never advised me to hold the election or not to 
hold it, or who should vote or not vote. 

Did any of the candidates send you any written instructions, if 
so, 'who, and when did you receive it, and please if you have such 
instructions, file them as exhibit B. to your depositions ? 


62 


Answer.—I never received any written instructions from an}^ 
candidate before the election. Several days after the election I 
received a letter which purports to be from S. A. Smith, and II. B 
Brabson, candidates for Congress, dated Harrison, 25th July, 1859, 
and mailed at Louden, 1st Augutt, 1859. Said letter I am re¬ 
quested to file as exhibit B. and as part of deposition. 

In whose hand writing does exhibit B. down to the signature of 
S. A. Smith seem to be, in whose hand writing is said signature, 
and in whose hand writing is the balance, commencing at “ my 
opinion,” and ending with “ R. B. Brabson ? ” 

Answ^er.—I am not acquainted with either of the hand writings, 
except S. A. Smith’s, I believe it is his signature. Mr. T. J. Camp¬ 
bell is here present and admits he wu’ote the first part of said letter. 

You have said the voting places in the 2d and 8th districts are 
in the part of Sequatchie attached from Grundy; are you ac¬ 
quainted with the voter’s name^, and the places of their residence, 
if so, how many of said voters reside in the portion of Sequatchie, 
originally belonging to Bledsoe, or Marion, and then attached to 
Hamilton, and how many of said voters reside in the portion attach* 
ed from Grundy ? 

Answer.—I am acquainted with the voters in the 2d and 8th 
districts of Sequatchie county, in what is called the old part, taken 
from Hamilton, to form the said county. Those that voted in said 
election are, E. S. Owings, Elias McGlothlin, Charles Moffit, Little¬ 
ton Cagle, Wm. McGlothlin, Wm. Williams, John Russell, Andrew 
King, J. N. Clark, J. M. Whitlow. The above names are in the 
8th district. Those that voted in the 2d district, formerly Hamil¬ 
ton, are Alex Lockhart, J. M. Lockhart, Elias Me Carver, V. M. 
Lockhart, Lewis Carlton, James Clemons. Those that voted in 
the 2d and 8th district, which is not named, lies in what is called 
the Grundy part. 19 in number. 

Are these two districts, 2d and 8th, composed in part of territory 
that originally belonged to Marion and Bledsoe, and then attached 
to Hamilton; and in part of territory originally belonging to 
Grundy and then attached to Sequatchie by change of county line ? 

Answ^er.—They are composed of said territory. 

Re-examination by Counsel for Col. Tibbs: 

Ques. —If there was ever any survey and plat of the territory, 
composing the county of Sequatchie, please state when the same 
was made, and by whom, and where said plat is now’" ? 

Answer.—There was a survey made by Burgess Taylor, which 
was sent up with the petition for the county, the plat and survey 
was left with the Legislature—the county was not established as 
surveyed, there was a part of Grundy county taken in that survey, 
but stricken out when the county was established. 

Ques. 2.—How much of Grundy county was included in said 
survey, to the best of your knowledge ? 

Answer.—My opinion has been, and is yet, that there was less 


63 


than thirty square miles in that part of Grundy county in said sur- 
vey. . 

Ques. 3. —Do the lines of Sequatchie county, as now formed, 
vary from the lines of that survey, and if they do vary, is the vari¬ 
ation a material one ? 

Answer.—They do vary materially, not anything like the same 
shapes. 

Ques. 4.—If you received any legal advice before the election as 
to how it should be held—please state from whom it was, and what 
it was—and if in writing, please exhibit the same to your deposition. 

Answer.—I received a letter a few days before the election from 
L. M. Key, of Chattanooga, not as my attorney. That letter I 
have lost or mislaid. The exact words I do not recollect. I recol¬ 
lect he said Mr. Connor would be here 1st Monday in August. 

Ques. 5—by same.—Please state at what time the Injunction 
which issued from the Chancery Court at Pikeville, on B. F. Bridg¬ 
man’s bill restraining or enjoining Sequatchie county, was served ? 

Answer.—The Injunction, as above stated, was served some time 
in Feb., 1858, I think. 

Ques. 6.—Was it not in consequence of that Injunction that the 
territory from Grundy was added to Sequatchie ? 

Answer.—It was not, or if it had anything to do with that terri¬ 
tory being added to Sequatchie, I had no knowledge of it. 

Ques. 7—by same.—If you know the reason why the persons 
residing in the Grundy fraction did not cast their votes between 
Stringer and Trewhitt, candidates to represent Hamilton county, 
please state it ? 

Answer.—I know no other reason than the common rumor, that 
was, that those that lived in the Hamilton portion, should vote with 
Hamilton county for Representative. I saw the most of the men 
in the Grundy portion, and told them that was the opinion of the 
most of the people, but it was not mine, that according to the Code, 
they had the right to vote for Governor, Member to Congress, Sena¬ 
tor and Floater, and, perhaps, tney had better not vote for the Rep¬ 
resentative of Hamilton. 

Ques. 8—by same.—Please state how many of those persons who 
sio-ned the original petition to the Legislature for the formation of 
Sequatchie county, lived at the time, and were citizens of Grundy 
county ? 

Answer.—There were several persons who were citizens of Grun¬ 
dy county to the petition for the county, I do not recollect the num¬ 
ber. 

Further this deponent sayeth not. 


WILLIAM RANKIN. 


64 

Jolin C. Lockheart, witness, aged about forty-two years, being 
duly sworn, deposed as follows: , 

Ques. 1.—By counsel for Col. Tibbs—Please state how long you 
have resided in Sequatchie county—what office you hold in said 
county—and where did you reside before removing to said county ? 

Answer.—I moved into Sequatchie last March was a year ago. I 
hold the office of Justice of the Peace and tax collector. I lived in 
Grundy county before moving to Sequatchie. 

Ques. 2.—How long did you reside in Grundy—in what portion 
of Grundy did you live—and wdiat offices did you hold in that 
county ? 

Answer.—I resided in Grundy county from its organization, un¬ 
til I moved to Sequatchie; I lived within two hundred yards of the 
old Marion county line ; I held the office of Justice of the Peace 
and tax assessor in that county. 

Ques. 3.—Were vou well acquainted with the territory known as 
the Grundy fraction of Sequatchie county—and also whether you 
have been much over said territory, and are well acquainted with the 
lines of the same ? 

Answer.—I am well acquainted with all that country, and know 
the lines very well; I have been over it frequently. 

Ques. 4. —By same—Please state as near as you can the extent 
of said territory—the length of the same—the average width—how 
wide at its widest point, and as near as you can the shape of it ? 

Answer.—As near as I can recollect, it is nearly in the shape of 
a smoothing iron ; to the best of my knowledge it is twelve or thir¬ 
teen miles long; its average width I think w'ould be five or six 
miles ; I expect it is eight miles at the widest end. I am satisfied 
from my own personal knowledge that the above is correct. 

Ques. 5.—By same—Please state vfhere the voting places of the 
2d and 8th civil districts of Sequatchie county lie—whether in the 
Grundy or Hamilton fraction—I mean A. J. Tate’s in the 2d, and 
the Woodly place in the 8th district ? 

Answer.—They are both in the Grundy fraction. 

Ques. 6.—By same—How far is it from the Hamilton line to 
said Tate’s, and also how far is it from said line to the Woodly place ? 

Answer.—It is not far to either place. 

Ques. 7.—Are you well acquainted with the people living on the 
Grundy side of said line, and who are the citizens of said Grundy 
fraction ? 

Answer.—I was well acquainted with them when I left Grundy 
county, but I learn that some have moved in there since. 

Ques. 8.—Please examine the scrolls of the election held on the 
4th of August, for Gorernor, Members of Congress, and Senator, 
a copy of which is exhibited to Wm. Rankin’s deposition, and state 
whether the fifteen persons who voted in the 2d District of Se¬ 
quatchie county, and the twenty persons who voted in the 8th Dis¬ 
trict, did not all cast their votes in the territory taken from Grundy 
county ? 


65 

Answer.—If they voted in the second and eighth districts they 
voted in the Grundy fraction. 

Ques. 9. —-Please look at the names of the persons voting in said 
districts, and make a list of the persons who actually reside in, and 
are actually citizens of the Grundy fraction ? 

Answer.—In the second district the following persons live in the 
Grundy fraction: J. C. Picket, Elias McCarver, Jacob Smith. 
Dolphin Knight, Jesse Savage, J. W. Tate, Leonard Cagle, Jas. B. 
Smith, A. J. Tate, W. M. D. O’Rear. I maybe mistaken as to Elias 
McCarver. The following persons in the 8th district live in the 
Grundy fraction: W. W. Samples, Martin V. Samples, Stokes 
King, Wm. C. King, Charles Barnes, Bird Clark, Thos. Barnes, 
Wm. O’Neal, A. J. Barnes, Benj. Perry. My recollection is that 
J. N. Clark lived in the Grundy fraction when I knew him. 

Ques. 10.—If you were acquainted with the territory first sur¬ 
veyed for Sequatchie county, please state whether any portion of 
the same was taken from Grundy county, and how many persons 
signed the petition from Grundy county; I mean the first petition 
for the establishment of Sequatchie county ? 

Answer.—There was a portion of Grundy county taken in the 
first survey of the county of Sequatchie. I know of no person 
signing the petition but myself. 

Ques. 11.—How much of said territory of Grundy was run oft* 
in the original survey for the establishment of said county "of Se¬ 
quatchie ? 

Answer.—There was more territory taken in then, than there is 
attached now. 

Ques. 12.—Did you sign the petition with the view of getting 
territory and votes sufticient to form the county of Sequatchie ? 

Answer.—No. 

Cross examined by J. A. Minnis.—Are you now satisfied that 
Elias McCarver now and has for the last twelve months lived in the 
portion of Sequatchie taken originally from Marion county ? 

Answer.—I am now. 

Are you now satisfied that J. N. Clark now and has for twelve 
months lived in that portion of Sequatchie originally taken from 
Marion county ? 

Answer,—I am satisfied that J. N. Clark now lives in the Hamil- - 
ton fraction, but I don’t know how long he has lived there. 

When you speak of the first survey of Sequatchie, do you mean 
the survey made before the county was created ? 

Answer.—It was before the act passed preating the county of Se¬ 
quatchie. Earther this deponent sayeth not. 

John C. Logkheart. 

The witness, G. W. Cain, aged fifty years, being duly sworn de¬ 
posed as follows: 

Ques. 1.—By councel for Tibbs—How long have you been living 
5 


66 


in Sequatchie county, and are you acquainted with the territory 
which now belongs to Sequatchie taken from Grundy county ? 

Answer.—I have been living here since the organization of said 
county, and for 25 years before. I am acquainted with the territo¬ 
ry spoken of. 

Ques. 2.—By same—Please state as near as you can the extent 
of said territory—the length of the same—its shape—and to the 
best of your knowledge how many square miles it contains ? 

Answer.—The nearest I can come to it, it is in the shape of a 
smoothing iron. I dont know that I could tell the length, because 
of the zig-zag course of the lines. I suppose there would he some 
thirty square miles in said fraction. 

Ques. 3. —Please state where the voting places in the 2d and 8th 
districts of Sequatchie county lie—whether in said Grundy fraction 
or in the Hamilton fraction ? 

Answer.—They lie in the Grundy fraction, just across the line. 

Ques. 4.—Please state whether the persons residing on the Grun¬ 
dy side of said line ever voted for Senator in the 8th Senatorial 
District, before the last August election ? 

Answer.—They never did. 

Ques. 5.—Please state if you are acquainted with that portion of 
Grundy county which was originally surveyed before the establish¬ 
ment pf Sequatchie county, and which was intended as the territory 
upon which said county was to he established ? 

Answer.—I assisted to run the line through there when Burgess 
Taylor made his survey, and I am well acquainted with it. 

Ques. 6.—Please state whether said territory comprised or em¬ 
braced any portion of the territory which was afterwards taken from 
Grundy and attached to Sequatchie—if so, how much ? 

Answer.—It did embrace very nearly all of it, except the portion 
bounded from the Hill turnpike road around to the old Burnt 
Stand. 

Ques. 7.—Then I understand you to say that it is very much the 
same territory with the exceptiou of the change of the line as above 
mentioned ? 

Answer.—There is still another differenee from the Bruner place 
round to where it strikes B. Taylor’s line. .1 think there is more 
territory now than there was in the Burgess Taylor survey. 

Cross examined by J. A. Minnis—Are you chairman of the coun¬ 
ty court of Sequatchie county—how long have you held that posi¬ 
tion ? 

Answer.—I am not now, but I was chairman from the 1st of Jan¬ 
uary 1859, to January 1859. 

Are you a member of the county court of Sequatchie—was the 
last election held 4th of August, 1859, held by judges appointed by 
the county court of Sequatchie county ? 

Answer.—I am a member of the court, and judges were appoint¬ 
ed by the court to hold an election on the 4th August, 1859. 


67 


You state this fraction from Grundy never voted in the 8th Sena¬ 
torial district until the last election—did this fraction belong to Se¬ 
quatchie county at any general election until the last election? 

Answer.—It never did. And further this deponent sayeth not. 

George W. Cain. 

The foregoing depositions were taken before me as stated in the 
caption. Said Rankin’s deposition was reduced to writing by him, 
and the other witnesses by me, and I certify that I am not interest¬ 
ed in the cause, nor of kin or counsel to either of the parties, and 
that I sealed them up and delivered them to F. J. Campbell without 
being out of my possession or altered after they were taken. Given 
under my hand this 17th day of Sept. 1859. 

S. C. STONE, Clerk 
County Court of Sequatchie. 

We agree to waive all objections to the foregoing depositions, and 
that the same may be read as evidence at the hearing of the matter 
in controversy between the parties. J. A. MINNIS. 

WM. H. TIBBS. 


1 John McWilliams 

2 Joseph Hixson 

3 A. R. Thurman 

4 Wm. Brimer 

5 John Skyles 

6 John Dill 

7 Joseph Duff 

8 J. J. Roark 

9 Thomas King 

10 Wm. Higginbotham 

11 Joseph Turner 

12 M. G. Smith 

13 L. S. Roark 

14 James Ewton 

15 W. B. Harmon 

16 Philip Hoots 

17 J. B. Austin 

18 West Walker 


No. 1. 

25 Hezkiah Haney 

26 William Dye 

27 Miligan Cordle 

28 Jefferson Walker 

29 Wm. Hunter 

30 Joel Wheeler 

31 Lemuel Hoge 

32 E. F. Austin 

33 Walter B Kenedy 

34 Jonathan Pope 

35 Virgil Beavent 

36 John Worley 

37 Ephraim Welch 

38 Isaac Welch 

39 Rubin Haney 

40 Thos; Minton 

41 James Billingsly 

42 John Teatens 





68 


10 Riley McWilliams 43 C. P. Ewton 

20 Thos. Hughs 44 John Welch 

21 David McWilliams 45 Howard Griffin 

22 Malcom Hunter 46 Sam. W. Robinson 

23 Joseph Minton 47 John Walker 

24 J. W. Swanner 

T 7 n f Isham G. Harris, ----- 27 

For Governor, | Netherland,.20 

p ) S. A. Smith,.20 

For Congress, I - 20 

T 7 a , f John A. Minnis, ----- 27 

For Senator, | ..... 20 

For Representative, { }?; 18 

For Joint Representative, | j'20 

We the undersigned, Judges and Clerks, do certify that the above 
is a true statement of the votes polled in the first civil district of 
Sequatchie county. 

J. D. Billingsly, a. R. Thurman, 

Thomas Minton, his 

Clerks. John X Teatens, 

mark 

John McWilliams, 

August 4th, 1859. Judges. 

No. 2. 

1 J. C. Ricket 9 J. W. Tate 

2 Alex. Lockheart 10 Leonard Cagle 

3 J. M. Lockheart 11 V. M. Lockheart 

4 W. M. D. Orear 12 J. B. Smith 

5 Jacob Smith 13 Lewis Carlton 

6 Elias McCarver 14 A J. Tate 

7 Dalphin Night 15 James Clemmons 

8 Jesse Savage 

I. G. Harris, - ^- -- -- --14 

S. A. Smith,.- - - 14 

John A. Minnis, - « - - - - - - -15 

Jerome Pope, - 45 

W. H. Stringer, ---------0 

We the undersigned. Judges and Clerks of this precinct election, 
certify that the above contains a true list of all the votes given in 
at the usual place of voting in the second district of Sequatchie 
county, for the above named persons.. This the 4th of August, 1859. 

J. C. Ricket. 

Leonard Cagle, Jesse Savage, * 

James W. Tate, Jas. .Lockheart, 

Clerks. A. J. Tate, 

Judges. 







69 


No. 3. 

1 P. W. Grant 

20 Malcom Johnson 

2 G. Lea 

21 Franklin Hatfield 

3 B. B Cannon 

22 F. Narramore 

4 J. A. Lamb 

23 Isaac Johnson 

5 Wm. Stewart 

24 John Shadrick 

6 Wm. Braion 

25 M. B. Narramore 

7 Wm. E. Kell 

26 Levi Fairbanks 

8 S. D. Thurman 

27 D. C. Hatfield 

9 A. L. Deakins 

28 J. Johnson 

10 Houston Barker 

29 Wm. Dickens 

11 James Stringer 

30 George Stewart 

12 W. D. SteAvart 

31 J. W. Simpson 

13 John Cannon 

32 J. M. SteAvart 

14 Howel Barker 

33 J. I. Rogers 

15 C. L. Lewis 

34 Eli Hatfieid 

16 Cornett Hatfield 

35 Richard Jones 

17 J. A. Cannon 

36 M. E. Barker 

18 Josiah Rogers 

37 N. J. Kell 

19 T. Boyd 

38 C. Gott 


This is to certifij that there was an election open and held in the 
third civil district of Sequatchie county, on the 4th of August, 1859, 
in which Netheriand received thirty votes for Governor; Harris re¬ 
ceived eight votes for Governor; Brabson received thirty-two votes 
for Congress; Smith received five votes for Congress; Tibbs received 
thirty-one votes for Senator; Minnis received seven votes for Senator; 
Gillespie received twenty-eight votes for Floater; Pope received ten 
votes for Floater; Trewhitt received twenty-five votes for Represen¬ 
tative; Stringer received eight votes for Representative, 


W. D. Stewart, 

C. L. Lewis, 

Clerks, 


John Cannon, 
William Brown, 
IIowEL Barker, 

Judges, 


No. 4, 


1 G. K. Larimore 

2 Andrew Farmer 

3 Albert Phelps 

4 Richard King 

5 G. W. Walker 
(6 W. D. Dorris 

7 W. B. Elliott 

8 Robert Mansfield 

9 John Jones 

10 Asa Countis 

11 John Clemons 

12 Clabourn Wimberly 


47 J. H. Larimore 

48 Thomas Carlton 

49 G. W. Heard 

50 M. P. D. Stone 

51 Wm. Pharris 

52 Linchfield Wimberly 

53 James Heard 

54 A. B. Ewton % 

55 Sami. Fondren 

56 James Cope 

57 Thos. Simins 
<58 James Jones 


70 


13 John Phelps 

14 Sami. Martin 

15 Henry Kell 

16 John Farmer 

17 J. V. Larimore 

18 Wm. C. Privil 

19 Elias Clemons 

20 Wm. Johnson 

21 Josiah Hatfield 

22 Marion Jones 

23 Wm. Heard 

24 Alex. Mansfield 

25 Wm. Hoakins 

26 Norman Mansfield 

27 Samuel Brown 

28 Hiram Johnson 

29 Alsherry Beavent 

30 John Hatfield 
81 Joel Hughs 

32 John C. Hickey 

33 Wm. Dugan 

34 James Mansfield 

35 Wm. Sullivan 

36 James Deakins 

37 E. G. Childers 

38 George Walker 

39 F. M. McDonough 

40 John Heard 

41 James Hatfield 

42 F. M. Phelps 

43 C. J. Ewton 

44 Washington Cain 

45 Boht. Chambers 

46 M. M. Phelps 
Netherland, 

Harris, 

Brahson, 

Smith, 

Tibbs, 

Minnis, 

Gillespie, 

Pope, 

Trewhitt, 

Stringer, - 


59 B. B. Barker 

60 Benj. Perkins 

61 Jonathan Hatfield 

62 Elias Smith 

63 G. W. Cain 

64 Wm. Wemberly 

65 Joseph Fate 

66 Robert Kell 

67 Joseph Brown 

68 John A. Heard 

69 James Heard 

70 William Hatfield 

71 S. C. Stone 

72 John B. Hatfield 

73 Joseph Davis 

74 Isaac Williams 

75 Granville Hatfield 

76 J. T. Heron 

77 Bird Harmon 

78 James C. Morrison 

79 Franklin Johnson 

80 J. H. Hatfield 

81 Edward Smith 

82 E. T. Sawyers 

83 Wm. Rankin 

84 Madison Deakins 

85 Charles Brown 

86 Wm. Carlton 

87 F. J. Bell 

88 0. M. Hatfield 

89 Pleasant Johnson 

90 John Henry 

91 Levi Penic 

92 Wm. Phelps 


51 

41 

52 
38 

49 

42 
38 
52 
36 

50 


State of Tenneesse, 1 

Sequatchie County. J 

We the Clerks and Judges of an election, opened and held in the 
County of Sequatchie and State aforesaid, at the fourth civil district 












71 


of said county, on the fourth day of August, 1859, for Governor, 
members of Congress and members to the General Assembly of the 
State of Tennessee, do certify that the above is a true statement of 
the votes polled. 


J. H. Larimore, 
Geo. W. Heard, 

Clerks. 


Madison Deakins, 
George Walker, 
J. W. Hatfield, 


Judges. 


No. 5. 


1 Fountain Davis 

2 Wale Turner 

3 John Coulston 

4 Littleton Webb 

5 F. L. Bailey 

6 Thos. Bailey 

,7 Henry Grayson 

8 Wm. Caggins 

9 Hyram Johnson 

10 Wilson Conner 

11 B. J. Bailey 

12 Joshua Fredricks 

13 Thos. Priddy 

14 Robt. Hoodenfyl 

15 J. M. Anderson 

16 T. J. Hoodenfyl, Jr. 

17 W. N. Johnson 

18 J. F. Barber 

19 Reuben Hixson 

20 Benj. Alls 

21 B. L. Bennett 

22 John Alls 

23 Joseph Winchester 

24 J. A. Gray 
Harris, 

Netherland. 

Smith, 

Brabson, 

Minnis, 

Tibbs, 

Pope, 

Gillespie, 

Stringer, 

Trewhitt, 


25 John F. Winder 

26 John C. Lockheart 

27 A. J. Davis 

28 Overton Dill 

29 Josiah Easterly 

30 W. L. Easterly 

31 Jonathan Turner 

32 W. H. Talley 

33 Jones Mabry 

34 Moses Easterly 

35 T. J. Hoodenfyl, Sr. 

36 Joshua Easterly 

37 Martin V. Easterly 

38 Rabt. Reynonds 

39 N. F. Burnett 

40 E. J. K. Brown 

41 Geo. Easterly 

42 Peter Brown 

43 John S. Kill 

44 Isaac Hicks 

45 Aaron Odom 

46 John Pickett 

47 John Barker 


17 
29 

15 
27 
19 

27 

16 
31 

18 

28 


We the undersigned. Clerks and Judges, do certify that the fore¬ 
going is a true and perfect statement of the votes polled at an elec¬ 
tion, opened and held at the election ground in the 5th civil district 











72 


of Sequatchie county. Time, on the fourth day of August, 1859. 
Given under our hands and seal. 

John S. Kill, • Thojias J. Hoodenfyl, 

Peter Brown, Joseph Easlerly", 

Clerks. Jones Mabry, 

Judges. 

No. 6. 

1 J. L. Stone 19 J. M. Morrison 

2 Monroe Lusk 20 Thompson Hicks 

3 William Latham 21 James Farmer 

4 Sandford Perry 22 David Hoodenfyl 

5 David Williams 23 Albert Saunders 

6 Levi Hackworth 24 Sami. Graham 

7 Thos. Pankey 25 Isaac White 

8 Joseph Goulston 26 S. P. Griffith 

9 Mathew Griffith 27 J. L. Lathum ^ 

10 Manzer Ellis 28 John Hoodenfyl 

11 William Marler 29 Joseph White 

12 Austin Hackworth 30 Wm. Burnett 

13 John Burnett 31 G. G. Thurman 

14 F. Deekins 32 Harry Hendrix 

15 Jesse Pickett 33 0. M Thurman 

16 E. D. Pickett 34 James Davis 

17 John Frizell 35 J. H. Griffith 

18 Daswell Rogers 

John Netherland,.-28 

Isham G. Harris, - 7 

R. B. Brabson,.28 

S. A. Smith, - -- -- -- -- 7 

W. H. Tibbs,.28 

J. A. Minnis,.7 

James W. Gillespie, 26 

J. Pope,.7 

D. C. Trewhitt,.-27 

W. H. Stringer,.6 

State of Tennessee, 1 

Sequatchie County. j 

We the undersigned. Judges and Clerks, certify that the number 
of votes annexed to each name is a true statement, the number of 
votes polled in the 6th civil district of said county, viz: John Neth¬ 
erland 28; Isham G. Harris 7; R. B. Brabson 28; Sami. A. Smith 
7; Wm. II. Tibbs 28; John A. Minnis 7; James W. Gillespie 28; 
Jerome Pope 7; D. C. Trewhitt 27; Wm. H. Stringer 6. Given 
under our hands and seals, this 4th day of August, 1859. 

John Burnett, Thomas Hicks, 

Daswell Rogers, , James Farmer, 

Clerks. ^ J. M. Morrison, 

Judges. 












/ o 


1 Josorjli Abies 

2 Adam Gray 

3 David Bimwii 

d Hiram Runnels 
5 John Gibson 
0 John Pickett 

7 A. Crag 

8 James Cannon 

9 John Kill 

10 John McClure 

11 Aaron Brimcr 

12 Riley Henson 

13 Simpson Brock 

14 James Myres 

15 Washing Portei 
10 W. M. Harvey 

17 Washington Coleman 

18 Patrick Cogburn 

19 D. A. Bii iner 


No. 7. 

20 Jason Harvey 

21 J. L. Iloge *' 

22 Geo. Henson 

23 J. N. Levis 

24 Joseph Abston 

25 Isaac Fedrick 

26 John Longbottmn 

27 G. W. Brown 

28 John Fedricks 

29 E. Nuba 

30 J. A. Smith 

31 Aaron Smith 
82 J. 11. Rogers 

33 Thos. D;ivis 

34 G. U. Fedricks 

35 John Lewis 

36 John Odom 

37 W. M. Odom 


We the undersigned, JuJges and Clerks, of an election opened 
and held in the 7th civil district of Sc(|iiatchie county, do certify 
that for Governor, Isliam G. Harris received nineteen votes, Joliu 
Nethcrland received eighteen votes; for Congi-ess, S. A. Srnitli re¬ 
ceived fifteen votes, R. B. Brabson received nineteen votes; foi- 
Senator, J. A. Minnis received eighteen votes, William H. dhbbs 
received nineteen votes: for Floater, J. Pope received twenty-one 
votes, J. W. Gillespie received sixteen votes; for Representative, 
William H. Stringer received twenty-one votes. 1). C. Trewdiitt re¬ 
ceived fourteen votes. 

A. J. SxWiTii, D. S Browx, 

Edwin Nuba, Adam Guay, 

Clerks. Joseph Ables, 

Judges. 

, No. 8. 


State of Tennessee, ) Election in the 8th civil district, 
Sequatchie County, /held on the 4th August, 1859. 

CANDIDATES. 


For Governor, Isham G. Harris, 

T' f R. B. Brabson, - 

Dor hongress, < o a c, 

» ’ / S. A. Smith, 

For Senator, John A. Minnis, 

For Floater, Jerome Pope, 

For Representative, Vfilliam IL Stringer, 


20 

1 

18 

20 

20 

10 


74 


1 E. S. 0wings 

2 Wm. W. Samples 

3 Martin V. Samples 

4 Stokes King 

5 Elias McGlothlin 

6 Charles Moffit 
T Wm. C. King 

8 Charles Barns 

9 Bird Clark 

10. Littleton Cagle 


11 William McGlothlin 

12 Thos. Barnes 

13 Wm, O’Neal 

14 Wm. Williams 

15 A. J. Barnes 

16 John Bussell 

17 Andrew King 

18 J. N. Clark 

19 Benj. Perry 

20 J. M. Whitlow 


We the undersigned, Judges and Clerks, do certify that this is a 
true list of the votes and poles in the 8th district, Sequatchie county, 
this the 4th day of August, 1859. 

Thos. Barns, Wm. McGlothlIxSL, 

William O’Neal, Wm. Williams,^ 

Clerks. Littleton Cagle, 

Opend and held by Bird Clark, August 4th, 1859. Judges. 


State of Tennessee, \ I, S. C. Stone, Clerk of the County 
Sequatchie County. j Court of said county, do certify that 
the foregoing is a true, full and perfect transcript of the poll-book 
or poll list now on file in my office, of an election opened and held 
on the fourth day of August, 1859, in said county, for Governor, 
members to Congress, and members to the State Legislature, as they 
were returned into my office. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and effixed 
the seal of said county, at oSice in Dunlap, August the 12th, 1859. 

S. C. STONE, Clerk. 





T r *• 






e 



r 


i* . I 



I 



\ 


I 


'V' A) - 


i ’ '• 

- r 

*.'t ‘^■. *“•* ’ 

0 

1 


.. • ; 

n 

» 


* ]■ I 7' 

>T- , r y 

>T" • 

* i * 




f 


I 


# 


I 


( 


» ^ ^ - ♦ ; • 
! • - 



* i 


r 




I 

I • 






i 


I 


* 


> . 


/ 


0 




• * 


f !' I f 




« 



4 


i 








Vf ■T*>. 




■. ■■ 




O'?"''., -.'..'^iir*' 

IB 





t . 


. >♦: 
* } 


fs^ vi'''^ , 



A 

\j 


j . 


* 

i • 


. ^ 






1. • • 



y.f.J 





'■ 


K 




i« * 




''V 


\ • / 




KT 


VT- 


»> 


» > 

• i 


'• -M. ■ 

4 - ^ I i . • '' ■< H £ *.JT^'‘. * I ' 




ij‘ 



t •* 

-rV^... 

-li •■'' 

j ',., >' 


. ■lv.v -.V 




'■ 'it/ - .-y; 

< M -.'V; > 


I 


,• 4 > 

«,■ 


■ A 

r- .: ‘ •-■ 

■’':v. - i 


f •>- r 

t V » 


i 


4 , 4 rv 

k*'' ' ••::. 4 ...|«v^vtVv' 

^., ,.32^ fi. ■ 




J . 


.4' 


i' . >1 






A » 







•I ^ /'4 • 

/ ‘ H -* TU^., 

r • ! » '• • 

-*irL 


t * 


V.V' 

4*‘.’ ■ >:i*. 


h r 


.» 


% -.: 

* V I 


> ■ * ' - • • • ^ ' I •' '^ -” - V > > ■ ‘A • 1 ■ 


4 4 


i. 


; f- . 


^ 4 - , - * 


r r '4^- ■• T 

■ - _' A '-■ - ■ 6 . - iA 


.iV 

I’Tr 


-y 


•+ij 


i> ;'.N"v 


n 




^ r> .4.. ' •/»' /. •y • ' '»(■ , ■• • >,i: 

^ ', . *-.’‘''•4.,* ■•' • ' .vf'-r- .'V'VAriiHw' > .‘-lu 


*v- 




•> 


■; ' f ■j-.z-ys’ifi ' 
t. ,. -j <,A .. .■A-'^: 


, V4..:.t ••■-■’•,•.4 ." .. 


’:/. 


p I'-.' 

i; '■• ■* 

“^r • 


^' 

t • 


nr 


> X, 



4 ^ 


W*iV' V 


'•f- 




• 


_V- 


>'3 


I 1 


>¥■ f 


j. • 




\a 

4 

) 


r 


■=4 • * 


U • 




^ >/ V' L . ■' * 


' 

* 1 i *■ I %»s 
I - 4 »■. * * 



' , .• *'’“4( ^ 

IMr ■ :5f; i-KS 


'■ ! '''H’i**' iAt. ' .' A ' ■ --' •' ’’1 

'■V • M'-^. ■-■■-. ■^' A 






h't 





'di 







\ 










o <J 


1 :^.. j^'. -^ 4 

.’■'f ' ;i»i ,3® 


■•■; ■‘^\ 
i • • X • T 



■HUfr.' 




., ■ ’, ;•■•'■,■■■■: rpi.-&Zk‘\-F .. , ■'JrtW 


'•’•■ ..• .■ V .■' ■ ■ -y' ■■' ■,jrs'''..4V V ■ .'r.”;' 

-••' lii* C' •• . '^ . • ♦•' /* '*^ !!*■■' S' *• ■ ^ 1 

- v‘ .'0 ' 1''• ..i' • ‘-S'’ 


•' . er” 


•^‘Sl7 *■ 

hft: ■ ^ . i * 4 . 


. >■ I. , 











"-■■■'VI .'^■^m^: 



■, * *■ ‘ 

^ ''‘IIS- ' 

.. -T?,’' iTx ■ ■ 

■ r‘•">!’♦nOtfS'^ 




■' •k»' 

*> 


- ' ‘■■»ll .fi-v' 


»t I 


> w 

, , \ *r'- ■ L *. nff 

'■.... ■}<i'\id^ \ .;,7\w 

: iW;- “', v'^' 


* ^jpc-v' 
•0, '.>1^ 





hL^LL^Af. 


A " ^ ■ * ' ■rfmt.‘\‘*I 14 ;’’' *''**'i'‘ *W 


■.pr-y^;} 

m!^ 'j^ ■ * 














( 


1 







r 


!■ 


/ 


I 


) 


\ 


> 


> 





f 

0 

i 


: 


% 


> 


V. 




k 




• . • ' ■ » 






y 


. V 


\ 




I 





I . 






0 




r 


« • 




i 


V» ^ 


i t 


• J ^ 




I 


• » 






I 


I' • 



L v » • 


I 










i 



• » • 


I 


I 


* t 


t 



t 


J 


t 




» 






I 


>■ <T* - 


jf . 





I 


h > 



« 


•I 





4 



M 


• . *; 


/ 


f 


« 


# 


I ^ 


•• 


4 


1 

I 


I 


I 


9 


» 






% 


» 




V' 

I 


« 


% 


« 


9 


0 


I 


✓ 



I 

ft 


W 


t 


4 



\ 




j 




t 


# 


4 




4 


C 


I 

< 

I 


ft 


✓ 




I 


% 


r‘ 


V 








« 


« 


I 


1 





I 


» 


t 


< 




t 

k 

» 


J ‘.* 




I 


U ita* 



t 


» ♦ 
( 



ft 1 






I 


n. 


I 


u ^ 


•3*. •'ll 


,T. ■' ■• Tr?5».-f , • > ;t 



<■ i 




■•V 


n 


•ys 



v;,' ■, ■ ^■:-7,. .... .:.t;y’», 

• ,j ^ . ^4 , 




' I ^ 


'ft, > j| 


* 'j 




* • 




PI yr:* v' • V " 


‘■■a ■ 

■ V ’> '■ 





* t 



U ' \ 


..5 -s 




'. 'i 
Jl. n* 




fr^ .f' i<KT* •' , 

rr«r... 







H Ji 


• . . • 




r-vvt. •* 

V r .,. 




■•;•' -i- •' 1*1 ■ : 


, y 




' r 






»*. 4 


f ' • .' ^ "I ' . 

^ ' W>i 




> * i' • • » 

t.* V -I *■ 

■ '.y 

T * 




.t 


* • i 


• . < • *i *. 4 

^ 


■A* 


A*. ^ *. ^ < 

? - A fit • • 


v( 


'.A 



• ■ ' •' .-V 

. <4 . #n 

♦ « . ' 4 


y;/' ^ " 






. J- 




ru,-j • •: 




‘» I * v’ i ■ 'i • *1' • :▼ 

'V..-- ') A ’.^di,' -i.J- ’.’'4v*4‘i 

: •. ■ Vi :..-v.:^'i 'Y-f.? 

' ' " i' \. *, ' ,■> '<} 




.j 


Kv-‘ 




a'»-l 


I 




a 




VuV‘- . '^-v 





» ■ 



,jf‘- '. N'.V: 

4ft'J -. . ' .' ■ . il'i. 

^ I » ■ r . . . .'*>•! n j ‘ «*• ' 




. .in 





^ i. 





V 


«■ 4 ■ 





• f *1 ' <1 ■ Ts- 




* « 


r''* - 






• » 


-r 

- ■ 





•T'i 

f t 




»> 


- * 1 "• 

• > 


i A , 

f; 


• 


Tiki i*"'" ■ Y*'" '■ /-I 

•/ - •, 

-'®- ;V ''V'’ 

^ 



• •' 1. •■■' ' » Af 

■‘<5. 

i-' 


‘>t -. '■ v ■ 


‘T 




^jfV' r... 


.' » 




I . • k T ’ ' 

■ ■ r;- ■ '■ 1, ■' ' 


' *■ ■■' 

'M 


^ . ■ • Vi '■ ^ 5 ; if ^ 

' ' ■ r-n-'''►“**>: ' 

'.f - 


t 


/',. ‘1 ■> 


M /•> .>-*■ V I 

.>1'^ VvTY* 'i ' * ♦' ■’ 

Ji ^'1. ■ 





i/i. i.v'.A ' -’‘air 

'T'V.r <A, % S 



•!:■ ' Vi; 


I » « * ^ # •' f 

^ i i M- ^ 7 • « I 

■ .v ■' w* ‘‘ir ’7 
* ^ .nL* !-■<'li 


• “' - ' ■ ’*ir ^ 

*\ • \ M. V '. ••• i /V * 

• . ■ "'• » S • V '1 .. 

^ » il/H .1 , ’ 

- 'to. 

' .‘ -.■■ ■' . ,'"0 . 
w_. 

' , /‘wr*-; #. ,- . . 


•' • .1 


I:"' . •-. avA,,; 

. J . #1, ' 





' ’ 1 I • < 

•• •»^-' *t' 






V 


, •i,-.iiaai-,, • 


^ ■; -n 

- H*» id 


r,': 


re- Ji 







7* n 














I \ 


i> 


^ f 







«1-^ 




' Y..,. • 




\. . 



1 It**''' ■ • 

iV. ‘ ^ * ' i 


■Y- "if 


H ^ 




.#■ '5. 


• 1 


w 




' . 1. r 





M 




» ..‘i 



Si*' '•- 

‘’•i?T ' *% ^ i- *1 f •. ’ • - 4L‘ W t* 

^ 7 Jfl • • *v * •'•= T^*. 


* . 


'■■ *■ ”*■' ■^*;. ^■'' ^ 
■ % 


f , 


>* ^ 


/ 


t* 


* f * 





" % ;;■ ■ 


•■ .:.\ i?.' 

1 J*'-' ■ *'■ ‘v ■'*”^'^14^-' 

- ■it'vi''r™3?>‘v - * 

f < :. ■ ■•' “'v 

'• •i ^ / ^ 




• ^ 


r.'hV I ^ C ■■So,; ''■; I 

^ ■' '-) r?v ’’ ''rcicj; 

Il,>'i7r, ^ ’ ’ ' ■ i’'• ■• '■ - ^ ' 

►f* ? v-'> ^ 



■ 1, ^'1T 


1*. * 


< *i v-ivi-: 


0 


r-,A V* » • . ^ . » 

^■’<,\ 


• ^ 


if ,/ 


) 


^ A > 





<'yu ■-■'-''’^It!')::;.’ '. ’ ■■''•■■’.,'\v '7,' 


,. t 

* •¥ 


£y':^ ■*,. 

f . - > i>,Mg-.r 

'■' ■.■'ri-'•«■!‘.U . ■ ■ "., ■ ., V vt; .•^, 

. ‘ V IT 




'V v 


<‘1 


♦ -i 




L/'’ 7. 


fm * 






M 


,t 




« r 


> » 


tiP®''V'’^ i'^ -‘‘.J ., fV- -. .„^.r 

''•■a' ■ ' ', 


fJ>L % 


.1 


, a U 


.■4 


I 


fy 


■ ’•‘i ' 

■ ■' ■ •y;' 





■n" * ♦■... ’*'' 


;•' ‘ ''.ml-‘ . " . - ■- fif'- .\ -- 

■hi 7- 7.« r.';' •?■:/■• ' -■ : ■» 




m-r- .-^ ^ 

-..' ■ 'a.#’V. 


‘ .•■*; •. ■/' 





. I ■.!,* jrctlif;.., ,,.J, 

..:• 5*. 


•5 V. 


>:r‘ 

t* ' 


■% 

i'i'. I’A^. 


■TV i A^' * '•" 

^'j ''‘t' 

h ■ • 


f { 





,,#r '*' V. 










^ -r*;' 


.>' ■ * 

■iT'.'' .• . Ji 





,' - ■ , 6W^ ■• ■ 




<- ■X''J 


ei 


x'l^j 


; ■ ■ 


‘ r ■ r-V7’ 

... ■‘•'r,.v. . 1 . 


'V * 


> " TT‘" ' • «l 

...»■>♦. "■ 




L 'VikrL.Af V . - ’ ° ‘ 


•. K 




-. » 




^ «* 




■-«. !\ 


•t • 

’'4 


\ «*• 

'«*• ' * 




%>■!?' y :r)fl 

^ '%w '-«> ^ 


.V ,' 






a 



V 


V 11 




* i 





V . , '■>': ' Vi. ■'4% ■:''■ ! 

• • v.»v , » 






> . 

11 I 









•< ' I . I'■ <*■ ' 

• ■ • \ .»* * V SiTa 

’ ^ V », *\%. > ^ ‘ • '.'"lU 

■ >■ * '■ -"W 


i • '/'-.■yl.'-v'i', ;' • ' : • •• 


. ■ CVVvJ.' 

I ^ K ' 


■ V. 

* !.•• • ' '■ - 1 ».*' .<• » V il>3 


. vv., ,. *,.,.■ V..“ ,:,V.', . ,. ".' . 




' 5v--•iV'V*’M*- ^ ' ' ' -- -J.,*.' • '^"?'>.rj 

. ' 4\ it-VyB 




s 




^ 'V ' 

, * ; •' 

. V '. * 1 ' *♦» ' 




' *V .» • ‘iP* • ^ V. - . i 

'f * ,..r . ^ ‘ V r 

^ . Jr I .. . Ik L.'.i 


l 



*:flSSSS5 ^ ^>A.rv»T 


K\ 

»- 1^* 









• *^' ’^1 ' H Jl 


•A . * >. 


^ i' i 


ul 


V ■■ - ->! “i* I' ■ 


<. > ■ 


y'M 


*.i: .r-v.. ,, 

/• . ;‘jy;' :i>« 


Kv."ty: & :h 









£nn»M!i 




»ywi?4 































































































